this is when i support the death penalty

[HarryKeogh]

Troy Kell murdered a man when he was a teenager at his girlfriend's urging. While serving time in prison he stabbed a black man several dozen times while shouting "white power". This was completely caught on tape and was broadcast in it's entirety on HBO as part of a documentary on the case. truly disturbing video.

He murdered someone before and received life in prison
His second murder was a "hate crime" (though what murder isn't)that was caught on tape.
It's now time for him to go.

He'll be shot in the heart and will die in a few seconds. A much better way to go than to be pinned down and stabbed 50 times in the face, chest and back.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/22/firing.squad.executions.ap/index.html

there is no chance that we are executing the wrong man. he's proven that he cannot be rehabilitated.

[Earthborn]

he's proven that he cannot be rehabilitated.How? What is the evidence? Wouldn't that be proving a negative?

[Crossbow]

If the standard for applying the death penalty was something like, "the proof has to be beyond a doubt" then even I would approve the death penalty.

However, the standard is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" which is much lower.

Consider the recent cases in Illinois where over 50% of the death penalty convictions were overturned. Think about that, a 50% error rate! That means that they are not getting it right even half of the time.

I doubt that the public would like it if over half of the speeding tickets and expired parking meter citations were in error, so I find it impossible to support the death penalty as it currently practiced.

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by Earthborn
How? What is the evidence? Wouldn't that be proving a negative?

his second brutal murder proved it to me.

but youre right. poor choice of words. let me say in my opinion there's a 99.999999934% chance he cannot be rehabilitated.

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by Crossbow
If the standard for applying the death penalty was something like, "the proof has to be beyond a doubt" then even I would approve the death penalty.

However, the standard is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" which is much lower.

Consider the recent cases in Illinois where over 50% of the death penalty convictions were overturned. Think about that, a 50% error rate! That means that they are not getting it right even half of the time.

I doubt that the public would like it if over half of the speeding tickets and expired parking meter citations were in error, so I find it impossible to support the death penalty as it currently practiced.

50% of the cases being overturned doesnt mean they were found not guilty. it means that something was unfair in the trial that causes concern. So they were reviewed.

and rightly so.

but in a case this obvious with visual proof i have no problem with it. i do have serious problems with it in other situations.

[Cain]

Firing Squad? Montana is the only other state to theoretically allow execution by firing squad, right?

These cases are good for testing the limits of government authority over the individual.

He's no doubt a monster, but I simply believe the state has no right to execute its citizens when realistic measures can be taken to prevent violence against others.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh


50% of the cases being overturned doesnt mean they were found not guilty. it means that something was unfair in the trial that causes concern. So they were reviewed.

and rightly so.

but in a case this obvious with visual proof i have no problem with it. i do have serious problems with it in other situations.

Correction, in many of the cases it does mean they were not guilty!

There have been many people who have been exonerated by DNA evidence in death penalty cases. They were exonerated because the DNA evidence showed there was no way that they could have been the killer.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Earthborn
How? What is the evidence? Wouldn't that be proving a negative?

Who gives a wank? hes killed someone and got life. Then killed again. Kill the cnut, prefereably with some piano wire and a few 12v batteries.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh


his second brutal murder proved it to me.

but youre right. poor choice of words. let me say in my opinion there's a 99.999999934% chance he cannot be rehabilitated.

Sounds like he is going to be rehabilitated, real soon...

[Victor Danilchenko]

Well, I could argue about the role of justice and punishment, the epistemic nature of truth and certainty, but I won't. Instead, a very simple point:

The power to kill legitimately is an awesome power. Power corrupts. This is one power I do not, under any condition, want the government to possess.

[Tmy]

Im ok with the death penalty so long as you have a very high standard of proof. The bias in death penalty cases bothers me, tehre needs to be a way around that. (For example how can that lady in Carolina who drowned her kids in the car not get death penalty???)



As for rehabilitation? Why bother. Even if you rehab him hes still in for life, whats the point. Prison is about punishment for crime not rehabilitation. Thats why we still prosecute people years after a crime. Even if they rehabilitated within that time.

[Michael Redman]

There's a clear distinction in my mind between the idea that this guy deserved to die, and the idea that my government should kill him. Undoubtedly, there are a number of folks who could be tortured to death, and most people would feel better about it, but that isn't the role of the government of a civilized people, in my opinion.

[Frostbite]

I'm totally for the death penalty in those cases. Child molesters, repeated sex offenders and serial killers are expensive and they don't bring anything positive to society.

But... death by firing squad? Isn't that slightly barbaric? I know it's the death they have chosen, but couldn't we just say "no" and use the clean and silent lethal injection?

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by Frostbite
I'm totally for the death penalty in those cases. Child molesters, repeated sex offenders and serial killers are expensive and they don't bring anything positive to society.

Surely one death row inmate is as expensive as the next?

Originally posted by Frostbite
But... death by firing squad? Isn't that slightly barbaric? I know it's the death they have chosen, but couldn't we just say "no" and use the clean and silent lethal injection?
Man, I wouldn't go for the firing squad if I had to choose. What if all the shooters got together beforehand and said "OK, everybody aim for his nuts".

[Skeptic]

How? What is the evidence? Wouldn't that be like proving a negative?

First of all, I would say that if anybody is obviously not going to be rehabilitated, it is a double murderer who committed one of the murders while in jail for the other murder. It is hard to imagine anybody who is less likely to be rehabilitated, when you think about it.

Second, and more important, I fail to see why his possible rehabilitation is relevant. He deserves to be executed as a fitting punishment for what he DID--cold-blooded murder by stabbing someone 55 times (let alone the previous murder he committed; if he had been executed for that, his second victim would have been alive today)--not for a future murder he might or might no commit.

To give an example, Hermann Goering certainly could have been rehabilitated. He was an energetic, intelligent man, who was not personally violent. He was not likely to kill people in the streets, and could have been quite a help for the allied reconstructing Germany.

So? Did his excellent rehabilitation chances mean he should not have been sentenced to death? Of course not. He deserved it for what he DID, not the likelihood (or lack thereof) of him killing someone ELSE after his trial.

To say that someone doesn't deserve to be executed for a vicious murder because they MIGHT be rehabilitated--or even, for that matter, because they CERTAINLY would be--is to tell the relatives of the victims, "SCREW your brother/father/mother/etc.; their death doesn't deserve a serious punishment, becasue the murderer won't do it again."

[Whomp]

Undoubtedly, there are a number of folks who could be tortured to death, and most people would feel better about it, but that isn't the role of the government of a civilized people, in my opinion

So ..... What? Vigilaties (sp)? I'd rather the government was doing it in accordance with a set of rules, than every Tom, Dick and Martha with a snubnosed .38.

[NoZed Avenger]

The one area that I do support the death penalty for pretty strongly is for persons already serving life sentences who kill again.

Essentially, if the only penalty they can receive is another life sentence -- i.e., no penalty at all -- there is no real disincentive for them. If they see a chance to escape and all they have to do is kill a guard -- why not? All that can happen is they go right back into the cell. Handling a prisoner for life under those circumstances, no matter how good the precautions, places additional risk on everyone that comes anywhere near him.

NA

[davefoc]

Cain said:He's no doubt a monster, but I simply believe the state has no right to execute its citizens when realistic measures can be taken to prevent violence against others.


What realistic measures do you have in mind? Have you watched any of the documentaries about the extremes that are necessary to prevent these men from committing more violence and yet some of them still succeed. These are guys that can make weapons from tooth brushes, eating utensils, and just about anything else. I doubt there is any realistic way to prevent murders in these maximum security prisons short of complete isolation of each prisoner.

Would you be willing to consider a solution like that in lieu of just killing the guy? For me, complete isolation in a small single room seems like a significantly worse punishment than death.

[QuarkChild]

To give an example, Hermann Goering certainly could have been rehabilitated. He was an energetic, intelligent man, who was not personally violent. He was not likely to kill people in the streets, and could have been quite a help for the allied reconstructing Germany.
I agree that he wouldn't have been a dangerous man to meet on the street, but do you really think he would have been useful? Albert Speer emphasizes in Inside the Third Reich how useless he was due to his drug addiction and lethargy. Also, he was corrupt. He looted museums to fill his private art collections and accepted bribes. If Speer's account is correct, he would have been a poor choice for a public offiicial and really wasn't the sort of person suited for any position of power, morally speaking.

[Badger]

I'm all for the death penalty for people who chop up little girls and throw them in the river.

(Re: Holly Jones, 10, disappeared one evening a couple of weeks ago, and her dismembered body was found in the river less than 24 hours afterwards.)

I'd even pull the trigger on 'em. If that makes me a barbarian, so be it.

[Whoracle]

I'm against the death penalty but even if a killer was able to be rehabilitated I wouldn't want them to be. If you knowingly kill someone under your own will power you should never be allowed back into the general population. You can however rot in solitary confinement for the rest of your life on an extended timeout (hey thats the new rage with liberals and parenting, I think it might have practical applications elsewhere) so you can think about what you've done. Kind of like what my mom used to do me when I was bad, just for a much, much longer amount of time.

[Andalyn]

I've seen the footage that Harry mentions.

Kell had assistance from another during the prison killing. A cellmate laid down on top of the victims legs, so that the victim could not get up or get away. With the victim immobilized and helpless, Kell repeatedly stabbed the victim in the head, face, throat, neck, chest, and abdomen.

I also think that Kell's buddy that assisted in the murder should also receive the death penalty, based on conspiracy. One could argue that Kell would not have been able to carry out the act without the assistance of his accomplice.

[jasonmccoy]

Originally posted by Skeptic
How? What is the evidence? Wouldn't that be like proving a negative?

First of all, I would say that if anybody is obviously not going to be rehabilitated, it is a double murderer who committed one of the murders while in jail for the other murder. It is hard to imagine anybody who is less likely to be rehabilitated, when you think about it.

Second, and more important, I fail to see why his possible rehabilitation is relevant. He deserves to be executed as a fitting punishment for what he DID--cold-blooded murder by stabbing someone 55 times (let alone the previous murder he committed; if he had been executed for that, his second victim would have been alive today)--not for a future murder he might or might no commit.

To give an example, Hermann Goering certainly could have been rehabilitated. He was an energetic, intelligent man, who was not personally violent. He was not likely to kill people in the streets, and could have been quite a help for the allied reconstructing Germany.

So? Did his excellent rehabilitation chances mean he should not have been sentenced to death? Of course not. He deserved it for what he DID, not the likelihood (or lack thereof) of him killing someone ELSE after his trial.

To say that someone doesn't deserve to be executed for a vicious murder because they MIGHT be rehabilitated--or even, for that matter, because they CERTAINLY would be--is to tell the relatives of the victims, "SCREW your brother/father/mother/etc.; their death doesn't deserve a serious punishment, becasue the murderer won't do it again."

But what gives the Government the right to exact that punishment? What are we really communicating? Certainly not that murder is bad or immoral - because we are allowing our government to do the very same thing! I am with several other posters, while it sounds great and feels emotionally thirst quenching to KILL a sadistic murderer, I am not sure it is in a civilized nation's best interest! We would never thing of supporting a movement whose ralllying cry was to "kill anyone who killed another." This is because we often wait to come to a decision about guilt, suspend judgement until our reason and rationality can overcome our emotional involvement! In the case of a very young murderer (10 or 11) we argue that "he did not know better!" Or if the murderer was instructed to perform the act as part of his patriotic duty, it is seen as ok, if not heroic!
We must be careful when arguing that "if someone commits heinous acts such as homicide via 55 knife entries to the face and neck" they are automatically deserving of death themselves. This will create an opportunity for a very slippery slope. Will another homocidal maniac having killed 55 total people with a single gunshot wound to the forehead be subjected to the same punishment? Or will he deserve worse? And moreover, where do you draw the line (assuming that one does exist in your mind) between who can be rehabilitated and who cannot. Or perhaps I should ask, who despite their actions would you consider attempting rehab?

[Whomp]

Civilized - Marked by refinement in taste and manners; cultured; polished.

What does being a "civilized country" have to do with how we deal with criminals?
Let's see, killing them is barbaric, but imprisoning them for life is less barbaric.

So the more civilized we become, the less punishment is meted out? Extending that line out, extremely civilized nations give criminals a white sports coat and a pink carnation.

And yes, I'm being ludicrous to make a point. Perhaps we should focus more on the crime and it's relative severity as seen by our society. That's exactly why a jury of our peers gets to recommend sentencing.
Certainly not that murder is bad or immoral - because we are allowing our government to do the very same thing!
<snip>
Or if the murderer was instructed to perform the act as part of his patriotic duty, it is seen as ok, if not heroic!

It seems as if we need some refreshing on our definition of "murder".
The dictionary lists it as The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
(Or possibly a bunch of crows)

As far as "what gives the Government the right?" ... we do.

I support the death penalty also in the cases if an adult told to a kid to commit suicide.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Whomp

What does being a "civilized country" have to do with how we deal with criminals?
Let's see, killing them is barbaric, but imprisoning them for life is less barbaric.

So the more civilized we become, the less punishment is meted out?No. The more civilized a society, the farther it gets away from treating justice as vengeance, and more to treating justice as simply a way to protect society. It's the "eye for an eye" thing that's barbaric.

[jasonmccoy]

To elaborate on the thread above. I am of the opinion that a "civilized' society makes use of every scientific fruit possible (ie. technology, brain science, genetics, etc) to prevent acts of violence. However, when acts such as murder do in fact arise, we must first work to understand why. In my opinion, it is understanding why people kill that will move us closer to preventing it.

[jasonmccoy]

P.S. The death penalty is costly in addition to barbaric. In addition, it does nothing to deter murderous acts. It only says "if you kill another we will kill you." I hardly see this as teaching a lesson let alone punishment. In my opinion and I would argue in the opinion of many pioneers in the field of learning theory (B.F. Skinner, E.L. Throndike, Mowrer, etc.) termination of life and punishment are oxymorans. Death does not promote rehab!!

[Malachi151]

I'm all for the death penalty. The problem is the matter of being assured of guilt. I think that with modern forensics the death penalty needs to be applied more often if there is indeed an increase in the quality of convisions due to forensics.

I don't think that its right to accept that there will be accidental applications of the death penalty, but in cases of certianty it should be used and will quicker execution of punishment, none of this sitting on death row for 15 years first. I mean when you get convicted, within 2 years you need to be gone.

I'm also opposed to the electric chair, I think that lethal injection is just fine. The point of the execution is not to return barbarity with barbarity, and the electric chair is barbaric.

Look, we are a society, we have standards, if you kill or torture people for no good reason then that's it, you need to go. We got too much to do in this world then deal with people like that.

It takes millions of dollars to keep someone in jail for life. Prison is expensive. Every person that is in prison is stealing from society again, well that's not true cause a lot of people in prison should not be there in the first place, I mean wrongly convicted and stupid laws that put people in jail for offences that should not come with prison, like drug posession, etc.

But anyway, if someone murders someone, then goes to jail for life, hell that's just costing us millions of dollars. Ultimately that's taking money from education, etc. If you "murder" you die, end of story, stop wasting our time and money.

Does "government" have the right? Yes, in theory government is the will of society. Of course that's not really true, but in terms of deabte that is what I would claim.

[Whomp]

Victor wrote:
The more civilized a society, the farther it gets away from treating justice as vengeance, and more to treating justice as simply a way to protect society
How better to protect society than to remove those who commit the worst crimes, permenantly?

Jasonmccoy wrote
P.S. The death penalty is costly in addition to barbaric. In addition, it does nothing to deter murderous acts.
I would argue that the death penalty is less expensive than inprisoning someone for life.
In addition, the death penalty does plenty for deterring repeat murderous acts by the same offender.
Jasonmccoy wrote:
However, when acts such as murder do in fact arise, we must first work to understand why. In my opinion, it is understanding why people kill that will move us closer to preventing it.
I'm all for learning and understanding as a preventative. But while we're moving closer to preventing it, let's make sure the ones who commit the crime never do it again.

Jasonmccoy wrote:Death does not promote rehab!!
Really? What's the recidivism rate of those who have recieved the death penalty?

[size=1] Edited for spelling and format[size]

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by Cain
Firing Squad? Montana is the only other state to theoretically allow execution by firing squad, right?

These cases are good for testing the limits of government authority over the individual.

He's no doubt a monster, but I simply believe the state has no right to execute its citizens when realistic measures can be taken to prevent violence against others.

Utah permits execution by firing squad, not Montana. Firing squad is at the option of the prisoner, not the state. It is carried out by a firing squad of five corrections officers. Currently, two prisoners have elected execution by firing squad in Utah, and they are scheduled to die pretty soon.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Whomp,

How better to protect society than to remove those who commit the worst crimes, permenantly?How better to avert future accidents than to kill everyone involved, or at least the opne whose fault the accident is? For that matter, let's kill petty thieves, embezzlers, and jaywalkers, too!

We better the society by averting the crimes while still maximizing happiness of as many individuals as possible. This is why the first choice in a civilized society should be rehabilitation, and second choice protective incarceration. Death penalty is not necessary, and has a multitude of negative consequences for society.

I would argue that the death penalty is less expensive than inprisoning someone for life.You would be dead wrong -- and had you bothered to investigate the subject before comitting yourself to an opinion, you would have known this.

Death penalty is way more expensive, because of the multiple appeals; but we want and need those appeals, because death penalty is final, and each incorrect death penalty is a murder of an innocent person. In order to prevent such final and un-correctable error, we spend gobs of money to apply extra scrutiny to each death row inmate; and so death penalty costs more than life incarceration. Cutting the cost of death penalty would greatly increase the number of innocents killed, a totally unacceptable trade-off.

In addition, the death penalty does plenty for deterring repeat murderous acts by the same offender.And it also does pelnty to ensure that a faklsely convicted innocent can never be released, should evidence of their innocence come to light.

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Whomp

No. The more civilized a society, the farther it gets away from treating justice as vengeance, and more to treating justice as simply a way to protect society. It's the "eye for an eye" thing that's barbaric.

You misconstrue Judaic Law. An eye for an eye was not considered barbaric, as in a requirement for revenge. It was not, for instance, you poke out my eye, so I must poke out your eye. It was a LIMITATION. If you poke out my eye, I may ONLY poke out your eye. I must not also cut off your leg, your arm, and your ear! Over the centuries this has become misunderstood. Think of it not as a mandate for revenge, but a limitation on revenge.

[Cain]

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger


Utah permits execution by firing squad, not Montana. Firing squad is at the option of the prisoner, not the state. It is carried out by a firing squad of five corrections officers. Currently, two prisoners have elected execution by firing squad in Utah, and they are scheduled to die pretty soon.

I read the article too :)

No, I thought there were only two states that allowed death by firing squad, and Montana was one of them (which is wrong; there are three: Utah, OK, and Idaho).

Davefoc writes:

What realistic measures do you have in mind? Have you watched any of the documentaries about the extremes that are necessary to prevent these men from committing more violence and yet some of them still succeed. These are guys that can make weapons from tooth brushes, eating utensils, and just about anything else. I doubt there is any realistic way to prevent murders in these maximum security prisons short of complete isolation of each prisoner.

I was primarily talking about violence from convicted criminals against peaceful citizens. Murder committed inside these prisons, especially against guards, is cause for real concern (butt the same goes for rapes). What's the murder rate in prison? I'm sure a fair number are killed without any kind of weapon other than their barehands.

[Skeptic]

But what gives the Government the right to exact that punishment?

In the USA, The same thing that gives the government the right to do anything else: the power granted to the government to express the people's will, by the constitution.

It is true that certain things are forbidden the government by the constitution--such as establishing religion, or arrest without warrant--but not the passage of capital punishment laws.

Morally speaking, things are simpler. Some crimes are so henious that only the ultimate penalty fits them; anything less is an offense against our sense of justice. It would have been a cruel joke on his victims to let Ted Bundy (for example) live.

What are we really communicating? Certainly not that murder is bad or immoral - because we are allowing our government to do the very same thing!

Nonsense. By this view, imprisoning kidnappers, or fining thieves, is also immoral, because we are doing "the exact same thing" the criminals did--restricting their freedom or taking their money.

The killing of a convicted murderer (like that of an enemy soldier at war or an intruder in self-defense) is NOT the same thing as the commitment or murder; not all killing is murder, or even wrong--as in this case.

No, we are precisely saying that life IS precious and that murder IS wrong--because those who would take the life FOR NO CAUSE deserve to have theirs taken AS PUNISHMENT.

The fact that we believe they deserve the worst punishment that we may inflict is precisely proof that we consider their crime the most henious, because it destroys the most precious thing in their victims.

I am with several other posters, while it sounds great and feels emotionally thirst quenching to KILL a sadistic murderer, I am not sure it is in a civilized nation's best interest!

Yes, OF COURSE it is revenge. OF COURSE it is hatered. But what is wrong with hating a sadistic murderer and wishing to do to unto him what he did to his victims? At least part of what we call "justice" is precisely the formalization of revenge, in the form of legal punishment.

Once you divorce the justice system from its commitment to punish offenders for their crimes, the system no longer deserves that name. It might be called a "rehabilitation system", or a "temporarily contained for society's good system", but it no longer has any justice in it.

You ask me what right the state has to engage in revenge and hate. I ask you what right it has NOT to do so. When people gave up the right to avenge wrongs personally and gave it to the government, they gave ON CONDITION that the government, too, will care for justice, and when necessary side with those who were wronged against the criminal.

There are numerous advantages to this: above all, it allows for IMPARTIALITY in the establishment of guilt and, if guilt be found, of punishment--to protect the wrongly accused of punishment, and the guilty of excessive punishment. But when you commit a saidstic murder, death isn't excessive punishment. The state has no right, in such cases, to abrogate its responsibility to bring justice to the victims.

We would never thin[k] of supporting a movement whose ralllying cry was to "kill anyone who killed another."

But we don't. First of all, again, not all killing is murder. In the case of murder, too, there are grades of responsiblilty: murder in the heat of passion in an argument, for example, is seen as less severe than a cold-blooded planned one. There are many other exenuating circumstances (such as mental illness, etc.) Only the most severe murders are candidates for the death penalty. As they should be.

This is because we often wait to come to a decision about guilt, suspend judgement until our reason and rationality can overcome our emotional involvement!

True. That's why there are impartial judges, and the trial takes place after some delay, often in another county. But what makes you think that it is "irrational" to feel hatered and demand revenge of sadistic murderers? What makes you think it is "irrational" to punish those people with death, as an expression of the people's disgust and condemnation of such acts?

No, the idea that revenge and hatered are BY DEFINITION "irrational" is simply wrong. You are quite right that we do not allow INDIVIDUAL feelings of hatered and revenge to determine guilt and punishment--that's why we have impartial judges, etc. . But it is is just as true that the COMMUNITY, as expressed by the judge and jurors, often is quite right in expressing its hatered of the murderer and demand his crime be avenged.

It was right to hate Hitler. It was right to hate John Wayne Gacy. It was right to hate Ted Bundy. To say that this is being "irrational" is to tell us to have no sense of justice.

In the case of a very young murderer (10 or 11) we argue that "he did not know better!"

True. Which is why the death penalty doesn't apply in such cases.

Or if the murderer was instructed to perform the act as part of his patriotic duty, it is seen as ok, if not heroic!

True. Because not all killing is murder. A soldier killng the enemy is not a "murderer" for doing so; in fact he didn't do anything wrong.

(I wonder how many of those who keep ranting that soldiers are "patriotic murderers" because they kill, would also call a mother who saved her child from a sadistic child rapist by shooting him in the act a "family-centered murderer". I mean, she KILLED somoene, didn't she?)

We must be careful when arguing that "if someone commits heinous acts such as homicide via 55 knife entries to the face and neck" they are automatically deserving of death themselves.

Of course not. If this was done in a drunken rage, or by a 10-year-old, or in self-defense that later lost control, or by a mentally retarded person, or by any one of a dozen other excuses, the perpetrator would probably not deserve the death penalty. But the assumption here is that none of these apply to this murderer's case.

This will create an opportunity for a very slippery slope. Will another homocidal maniac having killed 55 total people with a single gunshot wound to the forehead be subjected to the same punishment?

Some "slippery slope"! Yes, if we execute THIS guy, we are now in danger of executing ALL mass murderers! The horror! The horror!

And moreover, where do you draw the line (assuming that one does exist in your mind) between who can be rehabilitated and who cannot.

There's no need. When someone commits such a henious crime, to repeat, he deserves punishment for WHAT HE DID, not because it is, or is not, possible to rehabilitate him. What does it matter if he COULD be rehabilitated? Does this somehow negate the fact that he DID commit a vicious murder deserving of death?

As for "who deserves rehab", that's a whole other question. No doubt, there are many petty criminals, non-violent offenders, and the like, who DO deserve rehab--people whose crime was relatively minor and who, after being punished for it as justice demands, still could contribute to society. But they don't include vicious murderers, whose crime deserve the punishment of death.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Brooklyn Dodger

You misconstrue Judaic Law. An eye for an eye was not considered barbaric, as in a requirement for revenge. It was not, for instance, you poke out my eye, so I must poke out your eye. It was a LIMITATION. If you poke out my eye, I may ONLY poke out your eye. I must not also cut off your leg, your arm, and your ear! Over the centuries this has become misunderstood. Think of it not as a mandate for revenge, but a limitation on revenge.That may be the case (arguable), but that doesn't affect the fact that what we call "justice" these days is to a large extent a systematized vengeance.

[Malachi151]

You would be dead wrong -- and had you bothered to investigate the subject before comitting yourself to an opinion, you would have known this.

Death penalty is way more expensive, because of the multiple appeals; but we want and need those appeals, because death penalty is final, and each incorrect death penalty is a murder of an innocent person. In order to prevent such final and un-correctable error, we spend gobs of money to apply extra scrutiny to each death row inmate; and so death penalty costs more than life incarceration. Cutting the cost of death penalty would greatly increase the number of innocents killed, a totally unacceptable trade-off.

I knew this would come up.

The expense here is legalistic, and can be avoided by changign the law. The expense of of housing and feeding someone cannot be avoided.

Secondly its wrong to say that itws always more expensive, even as is because it isn't. Its only more expensive in some cases and it depends on how old the convict is.
Improvement of the system could be done to make the death penalty less expensive w/o weakening the quality fo convisions I am sure. One of the problems is all the people fighting against it. Instead of trying to put in law to make it ineffecient and working against the process they could be working with the process and making it more effecient at getting proper convictions.

Of course I do really put most ofthat blame on prosecutors and a corrupt system in the first place, so whatever.

Anyway, the problem is with the system, not with the morality of the question.

[Whomp]

Victor wrote:
How better to avert future accidents than to kill everyone involved, or at least the opne whose fault the accident is? For that matter, let's kill petty thieves, embezzlers, and jaywalkers, too!
This is an argument of the beard, or slippery slope argument. You can in no way correlate murder with jaywalking.

Victor wrote:
You would be dead wrong -- and had you bothered to investigate the subject before comitting yourself to an opinion, you would have known this.
You are right. I opened my mouth with what seemed logical in my head. I was wrong. After doing some research, I found you were right. My bad.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Brooklyn Dodger

That may be the case (arguable), but that doesn't affect the fact that what we call "justice" these days is to a large extent a systematized vengeance.

True. That's because, to the large extent, systematized vengence is what justice IS: society taking revenge on the wrongdoer as an expression of its hatered of his actions. I fail to see the problem here.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Skeptic

True. That's because, to the large extent, systematized vengence is what justice IS: society taking revenge on the wrongdoer as an expression of its hatered of his actions. I fail to see the problem here.Now we get to the meat of the problem. Why do we want systematized vengeance? Just because we want to take revenge, doesn't mean that we should. In fact, not taking revenge on criminals -- but merely doing the needful thing to prevent future crimes -- would be an important step towards a society that's more humane overall.

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Brooklyn Dodger

That may be the case (arguable), but that doesn't affect the fact that what we call "justice" these days is to a large extent a systematized vengeance.

What is wrong with taking vengeance out of the hands of the individual?

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by Cain


I read the article too :)

No, I thought there were only two states that allowed death by firing squad, and Montana was one of them (which is wrong; there are three: Utah, OK, and Idaho).

Davefoc writes:



I was primarily talking about violence from convicted criminals against peaceful citizens. Murder committed inside these prisons, especially against guards, is cause for real concern (butt the same goes for rapes). What's the murder rate in prison? I'm sure a fair number are killed without any kind of weapon other than their barehands.

I stand corrected.

[Whomp]

Victor,
I'm not following you. So, what, exactly, is your definition of Justice?

[Skeptic]

Now we get to the meat of the problem. Why do we want systematized vengeance?

Because it is otherwise known as a "sense of justice", where those who do wrong are punished for their actions.

In fact, not taking revenge on criminals -- but merely doing the needful thing to prevent future crimes -- would be an important step towards a society that's more humane overall.

No it wouldn't. Not for the victims and their relatives. It would be a society where the future prospects of the criminal take precedent over the innocent blood of the victims.

On your view, there was no need for the Nuremberg war trials; after all, the victims were already dead, and it was quite unlikely the perpetrators--the generals, SS chiefs, etc.--would ever be in a position to kill anybody ELSE. Most of them, after all, were not personally violent. They just arranged the mass murders from behind their desks.

Surely people with such organizational ability could have been put to useful work in the reconstruction of Germany, for example; why waste their talent by executing them, merely to satisfy our "outdated" feelings of revenge?

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Skeptic

Now we get to the meat of the problem. Why do we want systematized vengeance? Just because we want to take revenge, doesn't mean that we should. In fact, not taking revenge on criminals -- but merely doing the needful thing to prevent future crimes -- would be an important step towards a society that's more humane overall.

That's what justice is. Unless we want to allow families of victims to exact retribution themselves.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Whomp

I'm not following you. So, what, exactly, is your definition of Justice? I am not offering one. I am not invested in pursuing "justice, whatever the word means". I am interested in social policy that will better our society; and I don't think society is bettered by us enaging in systematic vengeance.

Now you can define rehabilitative/protective response to crime as "justice", and then I am for justice; or you can define vengeance as "justice", and then I am against justice. It's not the label that matters, but the policies I advocate or attack, and the reasons for such advocacy or attacks.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Skeptic, Dodger,

Justice doesn't necessarily mean vengeance. In fact, you won't find the word "vengeance" anywhere in the dictionary.com definition of "justice" (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=justice). Now this is what it might mean to some people, but this meaning is certainly not entailed by the word's actual usage; rather, I would say that it's incidental to it. What does seem to be essential to the concept of justice, is fairness; but fairness itself is partially defined in terms of justice, so we have somewhat of a circularity. "Justice" in this context appears to end up being a rather vague concept without a well-defined meaning.

Rejecting vengeance doesn't show disrespect or devaluation of victims' lives. It would only be so if vengeance itself was a morally necessitated reaction, but it would only be so if out society believes in justice as vengeance; which is to say that the argument about non-vengeful justice devaluing victims is totally, wholly circular. Non-vengeful justice only devalues victims if the society believes that vengeance is the appropriate ethical response to crime.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Whomp

I am not offering one. I am not invested in pursuing "justice, whatever the word means". I am interested in social policy that will better our society; and I don't think society is bettered by us enaging in systematic vengeance.

Now you can define rehabilitative/protective response to crime as "justice", and then I am for justice; or you can define vengeance as "justice", and then I am against justice. It's not the label that matters, but the policies I advocate or attack, and the reasons for such advocacy or attacks.

How does rehabilitation serve society better then execution?

Let's be honest, society's interests would be served if we killed about 3/4 of the people on earth. A few here and there, selected for by their own misdeeds isn't going to harm society in the least.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Malachi151

How does rehabilitation serve society better then execution?In multiple ways. Most obviously, it returns a productive individual back into society. More subtly, the society that supports rehabilitation instead of execution, promotes valuation of human life -- not just the lives we like and approve of, but all lives. This sort of attitude is of course at the core of freedom -- the fact that freedom means freedom for others to do even something you dislike -- and so this sort of conceptualization of justice would further promote a zeitgeist of tolerance and freedom in society.

It's very easy to get enraged and bay for blood of an obvious monster; but that leads us to getting used to baying for blood, and so we bay for blood with less and less provocation, because we feel morally righteous when we do so. Eventually we end up having this blood-thirst manipulated by the unscrupulous individuals -- it's a foothold to get people to do evil with clear conscience and righteous disposition. It's been done countless times through history, and modernity is no exception.

Let's be honest, society's interests would be served if we killed about 3/4 of the people on earth.Dude, what fscking planet are you from? :eek: :confused:

And how on earth can society's interests be best served by killing the majority of the population, if the said majority comprises the society in the first place, and thus their detriment will far outweigh whatever benefit the survivors derive, when considering whether such an action would be "good for society".

P.S. I betcha you consider yourself one of the 1/4 of the population that should survive...

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Malachi151

In multiple ways. Most obviously, it returns a productive individual back into society. More subtly, the society that supports rehabilitation instead of execution, promotes valuation of human life -- not just the lives we like and approve of, but all lives. This sort of attitude is of course at the core of freedom -- the fact that freedom means freedom for others to do even something you dislike -- and so this sort of conceptualization of justice would further promote a zeitgeist of tolerance and freedom in society.


Why do we need more productive individuals? There are over 6 billion people on earth, the loss of an individual in no way degrades society. The existance of the individual serves as competition for resources among other individuals. So, the ex-murder get a job at the plant while some guy trying to support his family goes another week w/o pay... hmm...

Does it really support valuation of life, or does it degrade the lives of the victems?

My idea of freedom is freedom to do anything that does not directly harm others. Murder is a direct harm to others. By doing it you break the social contract that grants individual freedom. You are free to do whatever you want, just don't kill people.

It's very easy to get enraged and bay for blood of an obvious monster; but that leads us to getting used to baying for blood, and so we bay for blood with less and less provocation, because we feel morally righteous when we do so. Eventually we end up having this blood-thirst manipulated by the unscrupulous individuals -- it's a foothold to get people to do evil with clear conscience and righteous disposition. It's been done countless times through history, and modernity is no exception.

I don't approach this as an issue of rage or revenge, simply a breach of contract that grants life. We can't remove people from society, its impossible. If we could then I would accept that, but we can't, except through death. I don't think that lethal injection for people who commit murder is a bloodlust, its simply a matter of taking care of business. You killed someone for no reason, then okay, well we will kill you cause you have proven yourself unworthly of life in society.

Dude, what fscking planet are you from? :eek: :confused:

And how on earth can society's interests be best served by killing the majority of the population, if the said majority comprises the society in the first place, and thus their detriment will far outweigh whatever benefit the survivors derive, when considering whether such an action would be "good for society".

P.S. I betcha you consider yourself one of the 1/4 of the population that should survive...

hehe :D I love throwing out wild statements and then backing them up :D

My claim was simply that the interests of society woudl be serves if we killed 3/4 of the people on earth. I think this is true. I not advocating that, I believe inthe rights of individuals to be protected from society anyway, unless of your you kill people :p But, let's look at this.

If we killed 3/4 of the population that would leave 1.5 billion people on earth. Whew, what load off eh? The earth did not hit 2 billion people until 1930, I think we coudl do fine with 1.5 billion. Now, despite the inhumanity of the event human society would recove and be improved no doubt. Everyone would have greater individual freedom, more property, wealthy would skyrocket.

Study the plague in Europe. You know what caused the highest rise in wealthy in Europe prior to the discovery of America? The Plague. The Plague is what "created democracy". When the plague was over the population of Europe was reduced by as much as 50% and individual freedom went up and prosperity went up and the power of the individual went up, leading to the growth of democracy.

This planet needs and enema :p

Its just a fact that despite the inhumanity society would be improved by a mass death. We have no need for more people to contribute to society. Murderers aren't doing us any favors by reentering society, we are doing them the favor.

I'm not actually advoacting this, so I have no opinion about if I would be one of the survivors or not, the fact is just that society would be improved and humanity would probably advance at a very high rate after that, we would probably be back at 6 billion within 100 years.

[Whomp]

O.K.,
Of all the things Malachi said, this is the only part that rings for me.
I don't approach this as an issue of rage or revenge, simply a breach of contract that grants life.

If you breach the societal contract of what is acceptable behavior to the point of wantonly killing members of that society, then you should be removed from that society. Permenantly.
It is my opinion that not everyone is a suitible candidate for rehabilitation.
De-valuation of victims is also a factor (to me). To expect the father of a murdered child to say "Whew, boy, I sure am glad they re-habilitated you! Nice to know you won't be killing any more children like you did mine! Lemonaid?"

Furthermore, how is keeping someone imprisoned for the rest of thier natural lives any different than killing them? It's a cop out. You aren't ever going to let them out. It's like burying someone alive so that you can claim you didn't kill them.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Why do we want systematized vengeance? Just because we want to take revenge, doesn't mean that we should.

No, I think now we get to the meat of your problem; the dichotomy of values and wants.

In reality where can you find the "should" if not from wants? Ultimately how do you justify it?

The only way I can see is if you set one up arbitrarily(categorical imperative, greatest good) which itself is merely a want.

In effect you are for the most part presuming that vangeance is only an extrinsic good. I and many, many people however see it as intrinsic. If someone wrongs us, we wish to revenge.

I'm not sure of why this is. In fact most people are not. But then again most people do not know why they feel a certain way about a great many things. People in the Middle Ages did not know why they liked meats, why they thought murder is wrong, why they wished to keep on living. But that didn't stop them from pursuing their values, pursuing their wants. Wanting is in itself a justification, wanting is the end that a "should" merely proposes to help you attain. Wanting is an ultimate jutsification, though not a full explanation.

I should also note the case against the death penalty is also based ultimately on emotion. The emotional appeal that we not be "barbaric"(which is merely a label given to something seen as unpleasant/undesired) or that we make it so no innocent person get punished, no matter the circumstances(a bit more complex an argument then the former of course based on less value for punishing the guilty and far more for sparring the innocent). Though I don't see how the latter applies to some very clear cut cases.

I CAN go further though and explain why I believe people have come to want the death penalty(a more ultimate explanation), basically it has to do with evolution.

During evolution organisms try to exploit eachother. Members of our species were no exception. Hence often times an animal had to resort to counter-agressive strategies: fighting back. This made them less likely to be exploited. But with more complex animals its different, you can fail once and try again, especially with humans. This is where mere momentary counter-agression is not enough. Merely stopping a guy from killing you during it is worthless if he simply gets to try again and again. This is where a more long-term retaliation, vengeance comes in. An organism is far less likely to attack an organism that will take vengeance, attack back, then it is that will passively either accept the assault, or defend itself till you stop.

Tell me what would you think of as more prudent to attack if you were a thief: someone who will stop you IF they catch you, or someone that will stop you and hurt you if they catch you or find out you stole?

Given a choice a prudent thief will always pick the former.

This applies to nature as well. Animals who merely defended were more likely to be exploited then animals that took vengeance.

I believe then that as animals became more intelligent, learned how to calculate odds and take advantage of others more easily, this sense of vengeance was more essential for societies where one person will quickly realize whether you will take vengeance or merely defend yourself at the moment. Hence vengeance evolved as a preventive measurement, as an extrinsic good.

But genes often times work indirectly, and extrinsic ends over times can only be consistently practiced if they are made into extrinsic values. Our enjoying foods is essential for our survival but how often would you eat if you did not enjoy the act itself? If it was neutral or considered a sort of labor? Less often then if you enjoyed the act. So the act of eating was made an intrinsic value, because it was so essential nature simply turned it on for good. Animal brains at times are also not developed enough to consider long-term goals and extrinsic values, so nature has to often time resort to emotion, making extrinsic values for the genotype intrisnic for the animal to get the animal to go for it at all.

And I believe in our complex, calculating societies vengeance was the most important of values. If people willing to exploit others knew you were a push-over, they'd take you for all you were worth. And they would quickly find out if you were one via gossip. Hence like the thief scenerio, if you would merely defend, they'd be more likely to attack you then if you didn't just stop at defense and took vengeance(especially if you were the type that took vengeance even if it hurt you as well).

Hence I believe this value, extrinsic to the genotype, by being so essential, became an instrinsic value for the phenotype, a basic emotion or desire. And there is no other basis of moral or behavioral justification then our basic emotions.

Now this theory isn't a science. I wouldn't go so far as to say it is a scientific theory. It is mere conjecture, but I would say conjecture that makes sense, explains a lot about mine and apparently mankind's emotional mechanisms, and has *some* basis in scientific literature. Read Steven Pinker's the Blank Slate where he explained how our sense of retaliation evolved in order to help an organism avoid being exploited.

I'd also like to point out that the justification(in the ethical sense) for the death penalty is still raw emotion. Just as the argument against the death penalty comes down to raw emotion(or lack thereof). And my evolutionary conjecture was offered as mere explanation for why this is so. To make this point more explicit, I like playing games because its fun, not because it helped my ancestors survived. Knowing how playing games helped my ancestors survive would merely explain why I felt this way, if the game got boring though I'd stop playing evolutionary precedence or not.

And this is where the government comes in, as a force that allows us to attain our values in a more organized and efficient manner.

The government protects our most core extrinsic and instrinsic values: education, knowledge, progress, freedom, life, peace and prosperity.

And this goes the same for justice, vengeance. The government in demanding we cannot be allowed to pursue such a strong and universal value ourselves has to give us something in return if it is to retain legitimacy to deprive us of our personal vendettas. What the government gives in this respect is social justice, the fact that it will take vengeance for us, since it demands we do not do so for ourselves.

This has the advantages of keeping order, allowing the weaker party to attain justice, and enforcing justice more efficiently(by making sure less innocent people are harmed; which benefits both parties, etc.).

This is why for example we go after Holocaust criminals, even though it is unlikely to benefit our society in any other way, to bring back the victims, or even to prevent another genocide. Even IF they could prove that punishing such or any authors of genocide is unlikely to prevent genocide again, I and many others(I day say even those against the death penalty) would still probably want such people punished. Purely out of our sense of retribution.

This is thus why we want systematized vengeance, answered in the area of justification and (to a limited extent) in the sense of explanation.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Whomp

Furthermore, how is keeping someone imprisoned for the rest of thier natural lives any different than killing them? It's a cop out. You aren't ever going to let them out. It's like burying someone alive so that you can claim you didn't kill them.

Oh yeah, good point. I have brought that up before in differnet discussions.

Yeah, I see not taking the death penalty as a cop out, like Whomp said. Its s way for the "victem's" to try and take a moral high ground, in fact though they don't do that. Like he said, how does keeping someone in prison for life do any good?

All that is is making yourself feel better because you then feel support to the "killer". In fact your just wasting their time, our time, and a bunch of resources.

Its like leaving someone on life support in pain for 5 years with no hope of recovery just because you are too afraid to pull the plug.

So you see what I mean, its like you are really wanting to oppose the death pentalty for selfish reasons, not altruistic. Its your own concious that you seek to protect, not their life. (Well, maybe not YOU, but that applies to many people.)

[Whomp]

Wow,
D.M. I read your posts and wonder why I'm bothering to post to this thread.
Well thought out, well spoken.

[davefoc]

I agree with DM. I favor the death penalty not because it costs less, not because it may or may not deter future crime and not because it absolutely prevents future crimes by the executed criminal.

I favor the death penalty because I think the desire for vengeance is a completely natural desire that was imparted to us by evolution for species beneficial reasons and it is reasonable in extreme cases to satisfy that desire.

Having said that even though this is an important issue, it's one I don't feel strongly about. For me, the argument that by keeping the criminals alive we are more likely to find faulty convictions which can work as a kind of feedback mechanism to improve the reliability of the trial procedures is a good anti-death penalty argument.

[Victor Danilchenko]

DialecticMaterialist

No, I think now we get to the meat of your problem; the dichotomy of values and wants.

In reality where can you find the "should" if not from wants? Ultimately how do you justify it?

The only way I can see is if you set one up arbitrarily(categorical imperative, greatest good) which itself is merely a want.First of all, "greatest good" is not merely a want -- it's the very literal incarnation of the connection between desires and mores. It's about as close to "natural ethics" as one can get.

The issue here is of consistency. Some of our desires -- some things that we regard as pleasant and good -- conflict with others. The point here is that even though abolition of death lenalty would conflict with some desires in the short run, it would actually lead to a better society (i.e. the society that further improves the public good) in the long run.

In effect you are for the most part presuming that vangeance is only an extrinsic good. I and many, many people however see it as intrinsic. If someone wrongs us, we wish to revenge.Yes. And that wish conflicts our wish for the humane society that maximizes happiness.

I should also note the case against the death penalty is also based ultimately on emotion.All ethics and politics isa based ultimately on emotion -- on the desire to survive, if nothing else. the difference is that some imperatives we all agree on seeking (survival, progress, etc.) and some imepratives we don't. When a conflict between the former and the latter arises, which one should give, do you think?

I CAN go further though and explain why I believe people have come to want the death penalty(a more ultimate explanation), basically it has to do with evolution.Evolutionary explanation may explain why this is how things are, but it says nothing about how things ought to be. Descriptive ethics is useful, but don't mistake it for prescriptive ethics.

Tell me what would you think of as more prudent to attack if you were a thief: someone who will stop you IF they catch you, or someone that will stop you and hurt you if they catch you or find out you stole?Deterrenbce is a part of prevention; but death penalty has repeatedly been shown to be no deterrent to crimes for which death penalty is imposed.

We can treat incarceration as deterrence, and that's fine; but then we will arrive at incarceration methods and practices very different from what we now have under our vengeance system.

Given a choice a prudent thief will always pick the former.Criminals already aren't prudent -- else they wouldn't be criminals. There are very few crimes which a prudent person would undertake.

And I believe in our complex, calculating societies vengeance was the most important of values. If people willing to exploit others knew you were a push-over, they'd take you for all you were worth. And they would quickly find out if you were one via gossip.Who said anything about being a push-over? You are attacking a strawman.

As I said, incarceration can be a part of systematic program of deterrence, which in turn would help prevent crime (but then the laws would be rather different from what they are right now). However, death penalty has no place in that scheme.

[Whomp]

DAvefoc, it seems that the whole "keep 'em alive in case we screwed up" argument is more of a statement against our legal system than against capital punishment.

Victor,
rehabilitation may or may not keep someone from commiting murder again. Incarceration may or may not keep someone from commiting murder again.
Capital punishment will keep someone from commiting murder again.
I am unable to see how doing away with the death penalty will make a better society.
I read back over your posts and found this as an explaination.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How does rehabilitation serve society better then execution?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In multiple ways. Most obviously, it returns a productive individual back into society. More subtly, the society that supports rehabilitation instead of execution, promotes valuation of human life -- not just the lives we like and approve of, but all lives. This sort of attitude is of course at the core of freedom -- the fact that freedom means freedom for others to do even something you dislike -- and so this sort of conceptualization of justice would further promote a zeitgeist of tolerance and freedom in society.
What I like or dislike matters not. What society likes or dislikes is another matter. Society dislikes having it's members slaughtered without just cause. The concept of freedom should never include the concept that murder is acceptable. This goes beyond a "dislike".
Actions have consequences.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Whomp

it seems that the whole "keep 'em alive in case we screwed up" argument is more of a statement against our legal system than against capital punishment.No, it's recognition of the fact that humans are fundamentally fallible; that certain error rate is unevoidable -- not a feature of our particular bad implementation of legal system, but an inherent feature of any legal system.

rehabilitation may or may not keep someone from commiting murder again. Incarceration may or may not keep someone from commiting murder again.
Capital punishment will keep someone from commiting murder again.Rehabilitation will leave wide-open the possibility of being proven innocent. Incarceration will make it possible for innocents to eventually regain freedom. Capital punishment is the only final, irreversible, incorrigible solution.

What I like or dislike matters not. What society likes or dislikes is another matter. Society dislikes having it's members slaughtered without just cause.Society dislikes even more the killing of innocents by mistake.

[Skeptic]

(sigh)

It's sad, Victor, how on your view the needs of the CRIMINAL become virtually identical with those of "society", so that he must be rehabiliatated, pampered, and returned to it; but the needs and rights of the victims for justice are dismissed offhand as a "primitive emotional reaction".

Also, you haven't answered my question: on your view, why should the nazi war criminals have been punished at all? After all, that didn't bring the victims back to life, and it lost "society" all those important, capable people, that could have helped so much in reconstructing Germany! Sure, they killed a few million lousy victims, but we shouldn't let our "emotional reaction" about THAT stop us from doing what is "rational", now should we?

Now, if you think they should NOT have been punished, the discussion stops here--it means you and I are from totally different galaxies as far as our sense of justice is concerned. But if you agree that they SHOULD have been punished, why NOT people like Ted Bundy or other murderers, as well?

[Earthborn]

... but the needs and rights of the victims for justice are dismissed offhand as a "primitive emotional reaction".In the kind of justice system common in Western countries, the needs and rights of victims are largely ignored as it is centered around the perpetrator. It is centered around the idea that the guilty should get punished.

In a more victim centered justice system, punishment is less important. What is more important is restoring the damage and relieving the suffering caused by the crime:
http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1704.htm
http://www.restorativejustice.org/

Are the people who are in favour of the death penalty also in favour of other physical punishments, such as beatings, whippings, amputations? If so, why? If not, why not?

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by Skeptic
(sigh)

It's sad, Victor, how on your view the needs of the CRIMINAL become virtually identical with those of "society", so that he must be rehabiliatated, pampered, and returned to it; but the needs and rights of the victims for justice are dismissed offhand as a "primitive emotional reaction".



It's sad that you seem to automatically equate "Accused" with "Criminal". Not all those who are in jail are guilty. As Victor has stated, the system IS fallible.



Also, you haven't answered my question: on your view, why should the nazi war criminals have been punished at all?
After all, that didn't bring the victims back to life, and it lost "society" all those important, capable people, that could have helped so much in reconstructing Germany! Sure, they killed a few million lousy victims, but we shouldn't let our "emotional reaction" about THAT stop us from doing what is "rational", now should we?



For my part, I would have had them incarcerated, but not killed. Furthermore, the length of their incarceration would depend upon the involvement they had with the crime involved.


Now, if you think they should NOT have been punished, the discussion stops here--it means you and I are from totally different galaxies as far as our sense of justice is concerned.


I know you're from a different galaxy from ME as far as justice is concerned. I find your idea of justice frightening.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Skeptic

It's sad, Victor, how on your view the needs of the CRIMINAL become virtually identical with those of "society", so that he must be rehabiliatated, pampered, and returned to it; but the needs and rights of the victims for justice are dismissed offhand as a "primitive emotional reaction".What fscking rights does the current system support? Does the government do anything besides the totally minimal to compensate the victim of theft? Does the society pay for, say, extremely expensive medical treatment for a victim of a correspondingly injurious beating? Does the government bring dead back to life, or compensate the dead vixctim's relatives for loss of income?

Our society does nothing to protect the victim from the consequences of the crime -- nothing besides exacting revenge upon the criminal.

Also, you haven't answered my question: on your view, why should the nazi war criminals have been punished at all?Yes, they should have -- to deter war crimes; but they shouldn't have been killed. I wouldn't even advocate life imprisonment, provided we had psychologically reliable means to ascertain rehabilitation.

Sure, they killed a few million lousy victims, but we shouldn't let our "emotional reaction" about THAT stop us from doing what is "rational", now should we?that's right, we shouldn't. Righteous outrage is a poor stand-in for rational thought. Just because you feel indignant, doesn't mean that you have a license to abandon reason and humanity.

Now, if you think they should NOT have been punished, the discussion stops here--it means you and I are from totally different galaxies as far as our sense of justice is concerned.We are from different galaxies. You desire vengeance, I desire maximal good for society. You also seek an excuse to let your emotions take the reign, while I seek a way to always have rationality firmly checking the emotions' excesses. You treat the victims' plight an excuse to flaunt your righteous indignation, while I try to actually figure out what would be best for society.

[SoBitter]

So capital punishment is a way to remove members of society who have killed without justification or do not have a good enough excuse. Isn't life without parole basically the same as removing them from society? As has been pointed out, with many appeals, a death sentence becomes more costly than lifelong incarceration.
Other than to feel like justice has been served, why do we take part in capital punishment? One person's sense of justice can be much different than another's, justice is not universally defined. In Singapore it is considered justice to cane someone for theft or vandalism, in the USA we would consider it cruel and unusal. As our values as a society change and evolve we may come to consider capital punishment as cruel and unusual. Some members of our society already do, that is the difference. Our government has the power to decide how we punish criminals, and theoretically if enough of our population decides that we no longer want to take part in capital punishment then we won't anymore.
As a side note, why have anyone be exempt from the death penalty? If a person is mentally retarded and commited a murder, they could just as easily kill again as a person who has full mental capacity. We say that if someone was not aware that what they were doing was wrong then they should not be held to the same standards, but by Whomp's definitions they are detriments to society and have broken the rules, thereby making themselves unworthy to exist in said society. Isn't making these people immune from the death penalty also a cop out?

Malachi said : Improvement of the system could be done to make the death penalty less expensive w/o weakening the quality fo convisions I am sure. One of the problems is all the people fighting against it. Instead of trying to put in law to make it ineffecient and working against the process they could be working with the process and making it more effecient at getting proper convictions.

Of course I do really put most ofthat blame on prosecutors and a corrupt system in the first place, so whatever.


So could you give me some real examples as to how you think this would work? How can we make the death penalty less expensive and increase the quality of convictions? Who is fighting against making the system more accurate and producing convictions which are true (finding true guilt)?

[DialecticMaterialist]

Yes. And that wish conflicts our wish for the humane society that maximizes happiness.

Yes and I believe then that attaining justice best maximizes our happiness or at least our satisfaction.

All ethics and politics isa based ultimately on emotion -- on the desire to survive, if nothing else. the difference is that some imperatives we all agree on seeking (survival, progress, etc.)

Not everyone agrees with all the above technically. Ludites don't believe in progress, nihilists, radical nature worshippers, and doomsday cultists, care very little about human survival.


and some imepratives we don't. When a conflict between the former and the latter arises, which one should give, do you think?

Depends on many things(usually who's in charge). Some things we may feel more strongly about then others for example or how long the value lasts or whether values conflict in many complex ways(bread or butter choices for example are both long-term/universal value conficts). In the case of justice though, I see the need for justice as both one of the strongest and most universal of all human emotions.

Now I'm not saying might makes right. But that might is needed ti enforce right.



Evolutionary explanation may explain why this is how things are, but it says nothing about how things ought to be. Descriptive ethics is useful, but don't mistake it for prescriptive ethics.

Well I did make a distinction between explanations and justifications. However I will note according to your standards, with the greatest happiness principle being a given, you cannot dismiss evolutionary explanations as merely descriptive. That is because what makes us happy is determined by what kind of creatures we are: and what kind of creatures we are is determined by our evolutionary history.

A society of intelligent cows and a society of men may both adhere to a greatest happiness principle(which itself is merely established by emotion) , how such a principle is best served though will vary between the two societies according to each species unique biology(which is determined in part by evolutionary mechanisms/history).

Deterrenbce is a part of prevention; but death penalty has repeatedly been shown to be no deterrent to crimes for which death penalty is imposed.

I really doubt this. China for example has a very low crime rate due to its severe punishment.

We can treat incarceration as deterrence, and that's fine; but then we will arrive at incarceration methods and practices very different from what we now have under our vengeance system.

Why is that fine and not the other system? That's a mere value judgement on your part, based ultimately on what you have dismissed as "primitive emotion."

Criminals already aren't prudent -- else they wouldn't be criminals. There are very few crimes which a prudent person would undertake.

I really don't believe this at all. Your argument "criminals aren't prudent because otherwise they wouldn't be criminals" is circular. Theives and mafia men steal for profit and can get very, very smart. Many in the Russian mafia for example have Ph.d's and utilize complex chemistry to bypass tax laws on alchohol for example(disgusing vodka as window cleaner via a chemical, then adding another chemical to make it look like vodka again after shipping).

Also keep in mind behavior evolved in bands, not modern day societies. In a band being able to steal extra food when you were short on food, kill another man when you wanted his wife and such was very prudent, and at times meant the difference between life and death.

Who said anything about being a push-over? You are attacking a strawman.

That was just an example to illustrate why a vengeful person would be more succesful in a band society thena pushover. I wasn't really attacking anything with my example(Merely explaining).

If anything your taking my statement that much out of context was a strawman.

As I said, incarceration can be a part of systematic program of deterrence, which in turn would help prevent crime (but then the laws would be rather different from what they are right now). However, death penalty has no place in that scheme.

So you say, but you've still not offered anything more then mere value judgements i.e. (vengeance or justice have no value for me, so they shouldn't fpr you either). To which I disagree, I think vengeance and justice are of utmost value, especially for most henious and easily proven crimes.

[SoBitter]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist



I really doubt this. China for example has a very low crime rate due to its severe punishment.


Can you prove that it is due to their severe punishment? Maybe it is due to their differing values and other cultural differences like less violence. There are many reasons that a country might have a lower crime rate, why is it necessarily that they have strong punishments?

[DialecticMaterialist]

It's sad that you seem to automatically equate "Accused" with "Criminal". Not all those who are in jail are guilty. As Victor has stated, the system IS fallible.

True, but how fallible? I doubt it's fallible enough to let most of the criminals go. Especially when the policy is "inoccent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

And the chance for error shrinks as technology improves. Forensic and DNA evidence for example greatly reduce chance for error.

Ultimately, I don't think that sparring a few innocence is worth letting many, many murderes go free. In this sense though, I'm somewhat willing to compromise. If the evidence is sketchy/ify, then perhaps life in prison. If the evidence is clear cut, then death penalty.

I mean there are some cases where the fallibility of the system doesn't really apply, cases where we catch war criminals for example, people that admit to the crime or if there is VERY strong evidence(a dozen witnesses, bomb making equipment, a tape of the man torchering the victim): the unabomber, Charles Manson, Andrea Yates, Ted Bundy, the Oklahoma city bomber, Saddam Hussein, etc.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Can you prove that it is due to their severe punishment? Maybe it is due to their differing values and other cultural differences like less violence. There are many reasons that a country might have a lower crime rate, why is it necessarily that they have strong punishments?

Is that really a reasonable doubt? Consider how self-serving that argument is. Where the death penalty does not appear to reduce crime, that shows "no effect" even if there are a dozen variables there. Where the death penalty seems to be working, its due to other variables.

You cannot have it both ways less we did a controlled, very solid scientific test, and no such test is available today.

In any event, if I was to be executed for protesting or jaywalking vs given a mere ticket, I'd think twice about it.

Are you telling me the severity of the punishment is irrelevant to dettering the crime?

In that case should we just give rapists an 80 dollar ticket when they are caught....would you really find that acceptable? Would that deter them as much as the death penalty or (just to make an example) severe torture?

[Earthborn]

You cannot have it both ways less we did a controlled, very solid scientific test, and no such test is available today.Which is exactly why you can't say "China has a very low crime rate due to its severe punishment". You don't know.

There are more factors you need to take into consideration:
- Perhaps less crimes are reported in China
(That wouldn't surprise me in the least, as people are not as likely to report crimes to an oppressive regime.)
- Perhaps China has a much greater proportion of the population that has no real policing at all
- Perhaps the Chinese gouvernment fixes the statistics to appear to have a lower crime rate.
(Which oppresive regime doesn't?)In any event, if I was to be executed for protesting or jaywalking vs given a mere ticket, I'd think twice about it.

Are you telling me the severity of the punishment is irrelevant to dettering the crime?Of course you can deter ordinary people with harsh punishment to not do things that are quite benign. The point however is whether you can deter very dangerous criminals from perfoming very dangerous crimes.

If you believe this is possible, you assume that dangerous criminals make some sort of rational judgement of the benefits and the risks of the crime they are going to commit, before they commit it. You assume they think before they act. Apperently you didn't notice that prisons are full of impulsive people.
http://talkjustice.com/files/ch05link.htm
http://www.healthleader.uthouston.edu/archive/mentalhealth/010322/
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/2002/11/criminal_genes/print.phtml

[Skeptic]

It's sad that you seem to automatically equate "Accused" with "Criminal".

No, I am equating "convited of a henious crime by a jury of his peers" with "guilty". Sure, the jury can be wrong. But so can any other human endevour.

Not all those who are in jail are guilty. As Victor has stated, the system IS fallible.

Yes, it is. So? It depends HOW falliable it is. No car, medicine, or recreation is 100% safe, for example; but we don't ban all antibiotics because a few people might have fatal allergic reactions to them.

You seem to be treating convicted criminals--EVERY convicted criminal--as some sort of potential saint, a potentially wrongly-accused innocent railroaded by the evil "system".

On the other hand, how do you treat the victims and their relatives? You despise them, treating them as "primitive" and "violent" for wanting the killer of their loved one, who caused them so much pain, executed. Can't they SEE that the murderer of their brother, son, or mother MIGHT theoretically have been wrongly convicted, or that he MIGHT still contribute to society? Have they no sense of the "greater good"?

This is standing things on their head: the murderer is glorified, and their victims defiled. And this is supposed to be the "advanced" and "humanist" position, the one that "cares about human life"?

News flash: the vast, vast majority of those on death row are people who richly deserve their fate, for cruelly and callously destroying the lives of their victims and (indirectly) of their relatives. For those who act in such a way, nothing but the ultimate punishment is appropriate.

For my part, I would have had them incarcerated, but not killed.

Hermann Goering was given by Hitler the overall responsibility for the "Final Solution of the Jewish Problem", which resulted in the death of six million jews. In addition, he had millions of russian prisoners of war and civilan starve to death. Let's say that's 10,000,000 lives or so he was resonsible for, at least partially.

Over (say) thirty years of incarceration, this amounts to ten seconds or so per death. "Bad boy! You killed six people today! I want you to stand in the corner for a WHOLE MINUTE!". Is this fitting punishment... or a laughable miscarriage of justice, a slap in the face to all the victims and their survivors?

Furthermore, the length of their incarceration would depend upon the involvement they had with the crime involved.

Yes, I really don't see why those of them who could only be proven responsible for a few thousand lousy deaths, insead of millions, should have been executed as well... had the allies no sense of proportion?

[DialecticMaterialist]

Which is exactly why you can't say "China has a very low crime rate due to its severe punishment". You don't know.

There are more factors you need to take into consideration:
- Perhaps less crimes are reported in China
(That wouldn't surprise me in the least, as people are not as likely to report crimes to an oppressive regime.)
- Perhaps China has a much greater proportion of the population that has no real policing at all
- Perhaps the Chinese gouvernment fixes the statistics to appear to have a lower crime rate.
(Which oppresive regime doesn't?)
quote:In any event, if I was to be executed for protesting or jaywalking vs given a mere ticket, I'd think twice about it.

Well its conjecture that makes sense. Notice one of your claims is at odds with background knowledge and the other two are spurrious as they suppose conspiracy.


In any event look at the context of my statement. It was made in reponse to alleged "studies" that show the death penalty to be useless as detterence.

Of course you can deter ordinary people with harsh punishment to not do things that are quite benign. The point however is whether you can deter very dangerous criminals from perfoming very dangerous crimes.

I don't see why they would be an exception. Criminals often times consider consequences just like everyone else, even sociopaths, which is why they try to hide their criminal activities.

If you believe this is possible, you assume that dangerous criminals make some sort of rational judgement of the benefits and the risks of the crime they are going to commit, before they commit it. You assume they think before they act. Apperently you didn't notice that prisons are full of impulsive people.


But who says impulsive people cannot be rational?

I see crime as more often caused by differing values, not errors in thinking or belief systems. Ted Bundy was very calculating and thoughtful but he still did his crimes. I doubt most people in prison are so impulsive as to not consider a consequence as severe as the death penalty. And if they are, then I must express a very strong dislike if not hatred for their character and demand execution for their actions.

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by Skeptic
It's sad that you seem to automatically equate "Accused" with "Criminal".

No, I am equating "convited of a henious crime by a jury of his peers" with "guilty". Sure, the jury can be wrong. But so can any other human endevour.



In this case, however, the error can result in the erroneous execution of an innocent. I would not take that responsibilty, so I cannot support the death penalty.



Yes, it is. So? It depends HOW falliable it is. No car, medicine, or recreation is 100% safe, for example; but we don't ban all antibiotics because a few people might have fatal allergic reactions to them.



This is true, but there are actual, tangible real world benefits to using antibiotics. Killing an accused murderer does absolutely nothing in regards to the victim.



You seem to be treating convicted criminals--EVERY convicted criminal--as some sort of potential saint, a potentially wrongly-accused innocent railroaded by the evil "system".



No, I treat them as human beings, and recognize that the system could be in error. I cannot with good conscience endorse the execution of an individual. Furthermore, the execution of said criminal does nothing but satisfy feelings of revenge, another thing that I do not endorse.



On the other hand, how do you treat the victims and their relatives? You despise them, treating them as "primitive" and "violent" for wanting the killer of their loved one, who caused them so much pain, executed.


Utter and complete nonsense. I understand why they want the killer executed, that doesn't mean I think it should be done. Suppose the relative of the loved one wants the killer tortured for days before execution, would that be ok too?


Can't they SEE that the murderer of their brother, son, or mother MIGHT theoretically have been wrongly convicted, or that he MIGHT still contribute to society? Have they no sense of the "greater good"?



They are not in a position to be very objective, are they? I'm sure I would probably want the murderer of my family members to be killed, but I'd recognize why that shouldn't happen.



This is standing things on their head: the murderer is glorified, and their victims defiled. And this is supposed to be the "advanced" and "humanist" position, the one that "cares about human life"?



Glorified? You're spouting nonsense. This has nothing to do with glorification.


News flash: the vast, vast majority of those on death row are people who richly deserve their fate, for cruelly and callously destroying the lives of their victims and (indirectly) of their relatives. For those who act in such a way, nothing but the ultimate punishment is appropriate.


Why? Because you say so? Because it satisfies you emotionally?

To me, even ONE innocent person put to death erroneously is too much. I'd rather see a THOUSAND murderers jailed for their entire lives than see one innocent person killed because of a false conviction.


Hermann Goering was given by Hitler the overall responsibility for the "Final Solution of the Jewish Problem", which resulted in the death of six million jews. In addition, he had millions of russian prisoners of war and civilan starve to death. Let's say that's 10,000,000 lives or so he was resonsible for, at least partially.

Over (say) thirty years of incarceration, this amounts to ten seconds or so per death. "Bad boy! You killed six people today! I want you to stand in the corner for a WHOLE MINUTE!". Is this fitting punishment... or a laughable miscarriage of justice, a slap in the face to all the victims and their survivors?



I cannot comprehend why this is a problem. He is not in a position to kill anymore, that is all that matters.

Retribution does nothing to reverse those deaths. His death would be meaningless.



Furthermore, the length of their incarceration would depend upon the involvement they had with the crime involved.

Yes, I really don't see why those of them who could only be proven responsible for a few thousand lousy deaths, insead of millions, should have been executed as well... had the allies no sense of proportion? [/B]

I don't suppose it might have occured to you that SOME of those involved might have:

1. Not been aware of the implications of the orders they were filling.
2. Fearful of their own lives.

-----------------------------------

I've known people who have lost loved ones to drunk drivers. Some of them have felt that the drunk driver deserved to die. They're no less traumatized than the person who lost a loved one due to a wilfull murderer, and yet I suspect you wouldn't want to implement a death penalty for Drunk Driving.... or would you?

[Victor Danilchenko]

Skeptic

Hermann Goering was given by Hitler the overall responsibility for the "Final Solution of the Jewish Problem", which resulted in the death of six million jews. In addition, he had millions of russian prisoners of war and civilan starve to death. Let's say that's 10,000,000 lives or so people he was resonsible for, at least partially.

Over (say) thirty years of incarceration, this amounts to ten seconds or so per death. "Bad boy! You killed six people today! I want you to stand in the corner for a WHOLE MINUTE!". Is this fitting punishment... or a laughable miscarriage of justice, a slap in the face to all the victims and their survivors?but the magnitude of the pain he inflicted upon the world is so vast, his death would be as negligible compared to it, as his lifelong incarceration! Either way, the victims and victims' families get no recompense.

You can recompense someone for theft; you might be able to do it for rape; you cannot do it for murder. There is nothing in the world that will compensate for the loss of life. This is my whole point here -- not to do the arithmetic of pain and suffering and death, but to challenge the very assumptions upon which this arithmetic is supposedly done.

Yes, I really don't see why those of them who could only be proven responsible for a few thousand lousy deaths, insead of millions, should have been executed as well... had the allies no sense of proportion?there is no sense of proportion to be had. Nothing the allies could have possibly done, would have compensated for the loss of life incurred by the Nazi regime. To even speak about fair punishment in this context is laughable -- there can be no fairness, the millions of victims are dead. In fact, in most crimes for which the DP proponents recommend death penalty, there ultimately can be no fair retribution -- the victim's suffering is irreversible and impossible to compensate for. Revenge is not even a poor second option next to genuine recompense, it's merely an emotional band-aid in response to cancer. It makes us feel better, but other than that, it doesn't actually accomplish anything WRT rectification of the wrongs inflicted.

[Skeptic]

Our society does nothing to protect the victim from the consequences of the crime -- nothing besides exacting revenge upon the criminal.

So why do you want to take that away from them as well? After all, the least the justice system could do is dispense justice by fitting the punishment to the crime, or, as you call it, "revenge". Surely, in that case, the thing to do is to change the system so that the victims, in addition for having the system effectively punish the murderer by execution, ALSO help them more monetarily and financialy.

Yes, it's revenge. So? Why on earth is taking revenge on vicious murderers WRONG? That's an important part of what "justice" is, after all! Revenge and hatered might not be nice, but they are NOT necessarily wrong. It is right to hate vicious murderers and to extract revenge on them by capital punishment.

that's right, we shouldn't. Righteous outrage is a poor stand-in for rational thought. Just because you feel indignant, doesn't mean that you have a license to abandon reason and humanity.

But you DO abandon humanity and reason if you don't punish nazi war criminals. You are sending the message that their horrific acts, their millions of victims, don't matter--because (horrors!) punishing them for it might deprive them of the ability to "express their full potential" to society's benefit. The opportunities of the monster to "help society" count for more than the blood of his victims. This is not being human; this is being inhuman.

On your view, there was no reason, for example, not to put Hermann Goering, or (if he survived the war) Heinrich Himmler, in charge of resettling jewish refugees after the war. Why not? they proved their ability to "resettle" millions of jews already! Surely, it's the "rational" thing to do...

We are from different galaxies. You desire vengeance, I desire maximal good for society.

Not exactly. I desire the maximal good for society--which IS served by extracting vengence on those who deserve it, like vicious murderers. You, on the other hand, SAY you desire the "maximum good for society"; but in reality, what you desire is "the maximum good for the criminal".

You also seek an excuse to let your emotions take the reign, while I seek a way to always have rationality firmly checking the emotions' excesses.

Why is it an "emotional excess" to extract revenge by the death penalty on nazi war criminals and the likes of Ted Bundy? Isn't it precisely PROPORTIONATE (or even less than proportionate) punishment for their deeds?

You treat the victims' plight an excuse to flaunt your righteous indignation

Nope. The victims, and what happened to them by the murderer, are the CAUSE of my righteous indignation, and demand a fitting punishment for the criminal.

Once more, what's wrong, exactly, with feeling righteous indigation against sadistic murderers? Or (to repeat) hate, or the desire for avenging their victims? When ELSE should one feel this, if not in these circumstances?

The difference between you and me is that you see ALL hate, indignation, and desire for revenge as essentially "evil". I don't. It was right to hate Hitler. It was right to hate Ted Bundy. It is right to hate vicious murderers.

I challange you to look closely, now, at the results of your claimed inability to feel hate and indignation. Do you really lack hatered and righteous indignation? No! you, too hate--or at least despise--SOMEBODY here. No, not the murderer: you despise the "primitive" victims, who let emotions "take over their rationality", by having the absurd idea that the murderer of their loved one deserves punishment.

It is THEM you can't stand, since they stand as a constant reminder that all your theories about the "good of society" will not make a vicious murderer less deserving of punishment, or his action less evil.

And why shouldn't you despise them? After all, you say to yourself in righteous indignation, if it wasn't for those ANNOYING people demanding punishment, SURELY the "humanistic and rational reform" of the penal system into one that turns every criminal into a new Aristotle would have been complete by now. Don't these primitive, insignificant people know that there's a little bit of good in everyone--including the guy who raped and murdered their mommy?

There is a saying in hebrew: "he who is kind to the cruel, ends up being cruel to the kind". Which is what happened to you.

[Earthborn]

Notice one of your claims is at odds with background knowledgeIf you think so, I am sure you are able to show how exactly. You said yourself that there is less crime in China. I just said that it could mean 'reported' crime and maybe less crime is reported. If you cn show that people in China are just as likely to report a crime as in the US, then please do.and the other two are spurrious as they suppose conspiracy.Only one supposes conspiracy. The other just supposes the obvious: that China is a huge country and many people live hundreds of kilometers from the nearest police station and that influences whether someone who has been wronged reports a crime to the police to be registered.

The one that does suppose conspiracy only supposes a conspiracy that is very easy to pulll of: it is fairly easy for the Chinese federal gouvernment to change the figures about its crimerate before it reports them to some international organization. Or are you claiming that there is an independant agency keeping track of crimes in China.

And there is another factor I did not even mention: perhaps the Chinese bureaucracy is so inefficient that many of the crimes reported to local police stations never end up counted in federal crime statistics. Or you saying that this is impossible, or even unlikely?In any event look at the context of my statement. It was made in reponse to alleged "studies" that show the death penalty to be useless as detterence.You can't use your own flawed or made up studies to counter other's flawed or made up studies.

For example I could claim that the death penalty is not a good deterrent at all by comparing crimes stats from the US with crime stats from a European country (which is any many ways much more similar to the US as China is!) and show that despite the fact that there is no death penalty, there is a lower crime rate. But would I prove anything with it? Of course not: correlation does not equal causation!I don't see why they would be an exception. Criminals often times consider consequences just like everyone else, even sociopaths, which is why they try to hide their criminal activities.They usually hide the evidence for their criminal activities after the act, proving that they usually didn't think clear before they did it. Many of the criminals who end up in jail didn't even hide it very well, showing that thinking clear is not something that comes easy to them. The person about who this thread started didn't think at all about hiding his murder of a fellow prisoner and shows that he acted purely on impuls.And if they are, then I must express a very strong dislike if not hatred for their character and demand execution for their actions.So if someone murders out of 'rational' motives you want him dead, and if someone murders out of impulse you want him dead? Is there any reason at all you can think of that doesn't necessitate the death penalty? :(

[Victor Danilchenko]

Skeptic

So why do you want to take that away from them as well?because doing so will make for a better society.

Surely, in that case, the thing to do is to change the system so that the victims, in addition for having the system effectively punish the murderer by execution, ALSO help them more monetarily and financialy.DP, being usually dispensed for murder and somesuch major crimes, virtually never occurs in a situation where any sort of recompense is possible. To even talk about recompense in this context is ridiculous.

But you DO abandon humanity and reason if you don't punish nazi war criminals. You are sending the message that their horrific acts, their millions of victims, don't matter--because (horrors!) punishing them for it might deprive them of the ability to "express their full potential" to society's benefit.No, we would send a message that the best thing we can do, is to move forward and to do whatever it takes to better the society in the future; that retribution doesn't have a place in the values of a civilized society.

The opportunities of the monster to "help society" count for more than the blood of his victims.But this not a trade! The blood of his victims is already spilled, there is no comparison going on -- it's not like we spill the victims' blood again by not executing him!

Not exactly. I desire the maximal good for society--which IS served by extracting vengence on those who deserve it, like vicious murderers. You, on the other hand, SAY you desire the "maximum good for society"; but in reality, what you desire is "the maximum good for the criminal".Ah yes, the good old 'you soft lefties love criminals" idiocy. How fresh.

Why is it an "emotional excess" to extract revenge by the death penalty on nazi war criminals and the likes of Ted Bundy? Isn't it precisely PROPORTIONATE (or even less than proportionate) punishment for their deeds?No, it's infitely less than proportional, because there is nothing in the world that can compensate a victim of murder. Nothing can ever possibly make it right, no matter the punishment yu inflict on the criminal.

Once more, what's wrong, exactly, with feeling righteous indigation against sadistic murderers?Nothing. What's wrong is to base public policy on such emotions.

When I read about heinous crimes, I feel righteously indignant also; I, too, want their blood. I just don't let those emotions override my reasoning facilities.

The difference between you and me is that you see ALL hate, indignation, and desire for revenge as essentially "evil".No. I see giving in to those emotions -- letting them override your rational judgement -- as irrational and unethical.

I challange you to look closely, now, at the results of your claimed inability to feel hate and indignation.I never made such a claim.

Do you really lack hatered and righteous indignation?No, I don't. I do, however, keep my emotions in check. Unlike you, who has a long history of using reason to excuse your prejudices (remember the homophopboia thread).

And why shouldn't you despise them? After all, you say to yourself in righteous indignation, if it wasn't for those ANNOYING people demanding punishment, SURELY the "humanistic and rational reform" of the penal system into one that turns every criminal into a new Aristotle would have been complete by now. Don't these primitive, insignificant people know that there's a little bit of good in everyone--including the guy who raped and murdered their mommy?Don't blow a gasket while expelling all that hot gas, dude.

[DialecticMaterialist]

If you think so, I am sure you are able to show how exactly. You said yourself that there is less crime in China. I just said that it could mean 'reported' crime and maybe less crime is reported. If you cn show that people in China are just as likely to report a crime as in the US, then please do.


My comment was in reference to your claim that China has more population that don't need to be policed, even though it has more people.


Only one supposes conspiracy. The other just supposes the obvious:

You said less crimes are reported because the regime is opressive and the statistics are fixed. Two claims.

The one that does suppose conspiracy only supposes a conspiracy that is very easy to pulll of: it is fairly easy for the Chinese federal gouvernment to change the figures about its crimerate before it reports them to some international organization. Or are you claiming that there is an independant agency keeping track of crimes in China.

Well then maybe we can suppose EVERY country fixes its crime rate stats , to make them seem lower and China still has the lowest crime....

And there is another factor I did not even mention: perhaps the Chinese bureaucracy is so inefficient that many of the crimes reported to local police stations never end up counted in federal crime statistics. Or you saying that this is impossible, or even unlikely?

Unlikely, communists may be bad at a lot of things but stopping crime is not one of them.



You can't use your own flawed or made up studies to counter other's flawed or made up studies.

I'm countering conjecture with conjecture. And why can't you used a flawed story? All stories are flawed.

So if someone murders out of 'rational' motives you want him dead,

Rationality refers to an epistemic method, tell me what a "rational" or "irrational" motive is exactly?


and if someone murders out of impulse you want him dead?

Yep. ;) I know, I'm a wicked man. I want people who murder on impulse executed. A sick man like me is beyond help.


Is there any reason at all you can think of that doesn't necessitate the death penalty?


Oh come on. What kind of question is that?


Well lets see: theft, assault, jay walking. The only real crimes that I think warrant the death penalty are the most severe(murder, mayhem, extreme torture, mutiny).

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Where would Christianity be if Jesus got eight to fifteen years, with time off for good behavior?

-- New York Senator James H. Donovan commenting on capital punishment.

[davefoc]

Is that a deep and meaningful quote or just one of the stupidest things that anybody has ever said.

[TomStockholm]

DM said

In that case should we just give rapists an 80 dollar ticket when they are caught....would you really find that acceptable? Would that deter them as much as the death penalty or (just to make an example) severe torture?


A lot of people in Sweden would say that that is basically what we do here. In Sweden punishment is far more lax than it is in the States. Life never means life, prisons are far more humune than they are elsewhere, like hotells a lot of people say. Without having the statistics to hand I am pretty sure that we have lower crime rates than you have in the US. I think it is pretty obvious that there are many other factors to take into account when looking at crime prevention rather than just punishment.

A question for you all. If hypothetically it was found that say sending violent criminals to the Bahamas on a luxury cruise was the best way of preventing reoffending would this be acceptable or not? Revenge would be zero but the cost to society would be negligable compared to incarceration or the death penalty. Do the ends serve the means? What is more important, society's need for revenge or a safer society?

And before you say anything, this IS something that was tried in Sweden a few years back! Only for juvenile offenders of petty crime if I remember rightly but even so...

[HarryKeogh]

and now we have this guy

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/25/geoghan/index.html

begin quote from article...Druce was carrying, hidden from view, a T-shirt and a pair of socks, Conte said. In his pocket was a book.

"He then stuffed a half of a book into the upper track of the cell door so that it could not be opened electronically, and in the lower track he placed a nail clipper and a toothbrush."

Druce cut pages from the book "just to fit the size of that track," Conte said.

Using the shirt, Druce tied Geoghan's hands behind his back, threw him to the floor, took the socks that he had stretched for the occasion to use as a ligature and began to strangle Geoghan, Conte said.

Using Geoghan's shoe, Druce twisted the socks like a tourniquet, then took a pillowcase and wrapped it around Geoghan's neck "to strengthen the strangulation," Conte said.

end quote

no matter how much of a dirtbag that priest was no one deserves to go like that. But since massachusetts doesnt have a death penalty what will be the consequences for his murderer? he's already in prison for life (for murdering a gay man). Will he be placed in solitary for the rest of his life (is that not cruel and unusual)? or will he just get a meaningless life sentence tacked onto his current life sentence?