View Full Version : Yet another case that shows why the death penalty is such a bad idea
Goofball
08-02-2005, 23:01
At least in this case, the poor bugger was only wrongfully imprisoned for twenty years due (arguably) to police misconduct. Just imagine if the state had whacked the guy instead. One thing that really pisses me off is that prosecutors tried to block the use of DNA evidence, presumably because they thought (knew?) it would clear him. That just doesn't seem right to me. Are prosecutors not supposed to be bound by the truth? Is the prosecutorial view now that even a wrongful conviction is better than no conviction at all?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8790793/
rasoforos
08-02-2005, 23:16
wow...this guy has either lost it or is a saint.
He spent 19 of his best years in prison and he didnt get to see his kids grow and he doesnt seem bitter about it.
What this case shows, is the easiness some judicial systems will put someone to jail with minimal or no evidence. I wonder if the judges and detectives who are responsible for him losing so much of his life will be held responsible and go to jail....I doubt it...and its plain wrong.
Big King Sanctaphrax
08-02-2005, 23:18
Yeah, his lack of bitterness is truly remarkable. If that happened to me I'd be suing everyone I possibly could.
Don Corleone
08-02-2005, 23:24
Rasafaros has an excellent point. I wonder if the DA worked to block the evidence to provide cover for the criminal wrongdoings of somebody in his department.
Beyond aboloshing the death penalty, I'm also 100% in favor of aboloshing jailhouse witnesses. You're going to offer a guy who's facing 15 years a 5 year sentence to come in and testify against somebody else? And you expect him to be honest? Give me a freakin break. I bet the vast majority of convicts would finger their own mother on a murder rap to get a few years knocked off their sentence.
He was sentenced to 13 to 26 years in prison and was denied parole four times because he refused to accept responsibility for the crime.
Well the purpose of parole is'nt to find you guilty again but to see if you are threat to society and if you can handle the world without being a menace.
PanzerJaeger
08-02-2005, 23:34
This is the same type of argument that is used against guns, and its a weak one. Lets trot out some poor soul who was wronged and garner enough of an emotional response as to erase logical reasoning.
Every policy has its shortcomings. By your logic Goof, we should stop imprisoning people because there are cases of those who have been wrongly imprisoned. Also we should stop police from arresting people because there could be mistakes made there too. ~:rolleyes:
At least he got a egree and learned seven(!!!) musicial instruments. ~D ~;)
I think those prosecutors should go to prison because they wanted to refuse the DNA tests, how can one stand against justice like that? If you are against such tests, there´s a high chance their outcome won´t be good for you. I don´t see any other reason to be against it.
Beyond aboloshing the death penalty, I'm also 100% in favor of aboloshing jailhouse witnesses. You're going to offer a guy who's facing 15 years a 5 year sentence to come in and testify against somebody else? And you expect him to be honest? Give me a freakin break. I bet the vast majority of convicts would finger their own mother on a murder rap to get a few years knocked off their sentence.
It can serve a purpose though, Don. If you can put away a criminal you could not have before, a criminal who causes far more grief and suffering than the jailhouse witness, then I don't see a problem.
As to the point of the thread, agreed, one of the biggest reasons against the death penalty and why it should never be allowed in a decent society.
This is a good example of where the "Death Penalty" is wrong. Another life saved. The justice system is not perfect, why let it deliver the ultimate sentence. This case proves that point.
Strike For The South
08-02-2005, 23:41
IMHO the death penalty should not be abolished but the case should be reveiwd many times over just in case. And while the death isn't great at deterring crime it gives many people (including me) a sense that justice has been done and a murder will never be let out or be able to live in prison
... many people (including me) a sense that justice has been done ... So killing is "Justice" in your mind. That isn't impartial to me. It is more like "revenge".
Justice is a concept involving the fair, moral, and impartial treatment of all persons, especially in law.
Strike For The South
08-02-2005, 23:51
So killing is "Justice" in your mind. That isn't impartial to me. It is more like "revenge".
I belive if a 30 year old man rapes and kills a 7 year old he does deserve death and I do believe thats justice those kind of people shouldn't be around
Goofball
08-02-2005, 23:54
This is the same type of argument that is used against guns, and its a weak one.
No it's not, and no it's not.
Every policy has its shortcomings.
But not every policy's "shortcomings" involve the state murdering an innocent person for no reason other than a hunger for vengeance.
By your logic Goof, we should stop imprisoning people because there are cases of those who have been wrongly imprisoned. Also we should stop police from arresting people because there could be mistakes made there too. ~:rolleyes:
Speaking of weak arguments...
Where did I say anything about wanting to abolish prison terms or arrests? You are the one who is making a very faulty leap of logic in order to set yourself up a nice, plump straw-man to take down.
There is nothing wrong with handing out lenthy prison terms. Even if we get it wrong, I still do not fault th police or prosecutors (as long as they acted in good faith and within the law).
But the problem is that the death penalty is final; there's no righting a wrong decision when that type of punishment is applied. And given the alarming amount of wrongful convictions that take place, to me, it's simply not worth the risk to execute people.
I belive if a 30 year old man rapes and kills a 7 year old he does deserve death and I do believe thats justice those kind of people shouldn't be aroundThat is an "emotive" statement. How many Deaths Penalties are given out for that in proportion to Death Penalties for Adult vs Adult. I think the latter would be higher.
What would happen if the person accused and killed is later found not guitly due to new evidence. Oh Well we get things wrong sometimes. No consideration is given to the person accused and the loss their family had to endure.
Strike For The South
08-03-2005, 00:11
That is an "emotive" statement. How many Deaths Penalties are given out for that in proportion to Death Penalties for Adult vs Adult. I think the latter would be higher.
http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/offendersondrow.htm read these
What would happen if the person accused and killed is later found not guitly due to new evidence. Oh Well we get things wrong sometimes. No consideration is given to the person accused and the loss their family had to endure.[/QUOTE]
Good point this is why if were about to sentence the man we better have not one possible shred of doubt
Checked that link. . Only 1 out of 5 checked involved children.
Strike For The South
08-03-2005, 00:24
Its not just about the children its about the raped and murder women the convient store clerk shot at point blank range for sheer greed. In some states these pepole are given chance for parole PAROLE :furious3: thats bull sh**
PanzerJaeger
08-03-2005, 00:32
There is nothing wrong with handing out lenthy prison terms. Even if we get it wrong, I still do not fault th police or prosecutors (as long as they acted in good faith and within the law).
But the problem is that the death penalty is final; there's no righting a wrong decision when that type of punishment is applied. And given the alarming amount of wrongful convictions that take place, to me, it's simply not worth the risk to execute people.
99% of the time a life sentence is final as well.
Your argument, or how it appears is, "since there was a mistake made in this case and others, the death penalty should not be applied." By that same logic, any sentence that has been applied wrongly on occasion should not be implemented.
Whats the difference between someone getting the death sentence for a crime they didnt commit and spending the rest of their life behind bars for the same reason?
Goofball
08-03-2005, 00:55
99% of the time a life sentence is final as well.
Your argument, or how it appears is, "since there was a mistake made in this case and others, the death penalty should not be applied." By that same logic, any sentence that has been applied wrongly on occasion should not be implemented.
Whats the difference between someone getting the death sentence for a crime they didnt commit and spending the rest of their life behind bars for the same reason?
I don't know how I can make this any clearer:
The difference is that we can fix our mistake if we lock up the wrong person. If we kill the wrong person, we can't fix our mistake.
I am willing to take the risk of somebody (even myself) being wrongfully imprisoned, in the interest of public safety. I am not willing to take the risk of wrongfully executing somebody (especially myself ~;) ) in the interest of people wanting to satisfy their bloodlust.
The distinction is quite simple, really...
Don Corleone
08-03-2005, 01:19
It can serve a purpose though, Don. If you can put away a criminal you could not have before, a criminal who causes far more grief and suffering than the jailhouse witness, then I don't see a problem.
As to the point of the thread, agreed, one of the biggest reasons against the death penalty and why it should never be allowed in a decent society.
How could you possibly have any sense of trust in the testimony? You are literally holding the man's life in his hands and telling him that if he testifies to what you want him to testify to, he'll get some of it back quicker.
The only way I could possibly see them being fair is for the DA to say "Okay, Mr. Corleone. You're up for 12 to 25. We'll knock that down to 8 to 12, regardless of what you say, but if we find out you're lying, you'll have the original sentence, plus perjury time". In other words, his time out of jail is dependent on the honesty & accuracy of his testimony, not whether or not he actually 'gives the goods' on somebody. You're giving him one hell of a motive to frame somebody.
sharrukin
08-03-2005, 01:53
I don't know how I can make this any clearer:
The difference is that we can fix our mistake if we lock up the wrong person. If we kill the wrong person, we can't fix our mistake.
I am willing to take the risk of somebody (even myself) being wrongfully imprisoned, in the interest of public safety. I am not willing to take the risk of wrongfully executing somebody (especially myself ~;) ) in the interest of people wanting to satisfy their bloodlust.
The distinction is quite simple, really...
Not that simple!
How do you fix being sodomized Goofball? How do you give him back those 19 years?
How many 25 year old guys, if given the choice between immediate execution and spending 19 years in prison, getting out at age 44 would choose prison? Of course they don't give you the choice of immediate execution, instead they drag it out for something like 11 years now, IIRC.
Long term imprisonment doesn't seem all that much more humane to me. I don't much care for wrongfully imprisoning somebody (especially myself ~;) ) in the interest of people wanting to satisfy their sadism.
Miscarriages of justice happen regardless of the system held to. Errors that do occur are more properly understood as procedural not conceptual.
Save for pacifist positions killing is considered appropriate as a societal defense. This is the justification of having a military. The basis for the Death Penalty is retribution. If one holds that there are acts that are so egregious that the offender can no longer be part of society then the guilty should be killed. Life imprisonment is cruel and unusual punishment.
For once, Pindar is right. ~:cheers:
Once?
"A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house."
IMHO, some of you guys have seriously devalued concepts of the gift of life itself.
Execution more humane? It's not even on the same level. Totally incomparable, because it's plain old "lights out" for the executed criminal. How can one measure a life of imprisonment against oblivion? Apples and oranges.
If that same criminal were alive, he would still have the opportunity (albeit limited by his own actions) to develop himself as a human being. There would still be something to be extracted from his time on this planet.
OK, so what if he doesn't choose to grow and better himself, and remains a savage dog of a man? Well, it largely doesn't matter, because he has been removed from polite society anyway.
Cruel and unusual punishment? I don't think so. Rather, it is an opportunity, whether or not the lifer realises it.
Divinus Arma
08-03-2005, 02:59
Yeah, his lack of bitterness is truly remarkable. If that happened to me I'd be suing everyone I possibly could.
Oh ya baby.
I agree with you. Roark. A human life is more valuable, then a Death.
Who says you need to make prison too comfortable ? Liberals yes. Conservatives No.
Prisoners, should pay for their time in prison. Either, while they are in there, by working or when they get out, by paying of the debt. This will make crime cost.
One might just call you Naive, Roark.
Life is great, bla bla. Yeah, it is. But when you commit a crime, you put your life in the hands of the state that you have hurt. If execution is the best way to get the miscreant out of the damageable public, then so be it. Be damned if these people should go on living in prison, with cable TV and all, at the expense of our tax dollars. That's money that should be going to schools, police stations, fire stations, and homeless shelters. Not condemned felons.
I'm not talking about concepts like utility or economic efficiency here.
I was actually just challenging the idea that the value of a human life can be measured in such superficial terms.
I won't try to convert you from your viewpoint on corrections policy.
Azi Tohak
08-03-2005, 05:20
Forced Labor for a fixed period without possibility of getting out early is something i'd support. But good luck getting any liberal, and some conservatives, to agree with that.
What happened to the good old days of using them for free labor? Highways, parks etc need to be cleaned. And I would like to smack whoever got these scumbags 'conjugal' visits.
Azi
IMHO, some of you guys have seriously devalued concepts of the gift of life itself.
Execution more humane? It's not even on the same level. Totally incomparable, because it's plain old "lights out" for the executed criminal. How can one measure a life of imprisonment against oblivion? Apples and oranges.
If that same criminal were alive, he would still have the opportunity (albeit limited by his own actions) to develop himself as a human being. There would still be something to be extracted from his time on this planet.
OK, so what if he doesn't choose to grow and better himself, and remains a savage dog of a man? Well, it largely doesn't matter, because he has been removed from polite society anyway.
Cruel and unusual punishment? I don't think so. Rather, it is an opportunity, whether or not the lifer realises it.
Is this an argument that society doesn't have the right to kill in order to protect itself? If so, then you must support disbanding the military. If not, then you have already placed a value over and above the preservation of life.
Now if society does have the right to kill this should apply to threats within as well as without.
Voigtkampf
08-03-2005, 06:14
First time I recall being on the same side as you in an argument. :book:
"Once you strike down the path to the dark side..." ~;)
"Once you strike down the path to the dark side..." ~;)
Voigtkampf knows me too well. You Gelatinous Cube, you must also learn the ways of the Dark Side. Then you will be unstopable.
sharrukin
08-03-2005, 08:46
I'm not talking about concepts like utility or economic efficiency here.
I was actually just challenging the idea that the value of a human life can be measured in such superficial terms.
I won't try to convert you from your viewpoint on corrections policy.
But if life cannot be measured by such a crass yardstick then human life must be something more than just a warm body.
A reverence for human life, to have any meaning, must incorporate the spiritual side of our lives. If not, how do we differ from cattle or chickens?
Doesn't our conduct give value to our lives, and cannot that same conduct take it away?
Ja'chyra
08-03-2005, 09:20
I believe there is still a case for the death sentence, take for example serial paedophiles or the failed suicide bombers. We have clear proof in the case of the suicide bombers including confessions and I don't think anyone can disagree that they deserve to die, alright I'm sure some people here will disagree.
As for the arguments that say we would deprive the criminal of his chance of reform or to show remorse, tough. Why would we want to let someone like this back into the community? I don't. Do they deserve a chance to make a new life? No, I don't think so. They deserve to be punished, not treated like some sort of victim, and if the crime is serious enough that they deserve to lose their lives then so be it, they shouldn't have done the crime.
And yes, I see this as justice not revenge, why would I want revenge on someone who committed a crime against someone I don't even know and never would know.
There is also the question of what is the value of a human life. I would say it is all dependant on whose life for example I value the life of my wife and family much more than, for example, someone who lives half a world away. Hell, if I had to make the choice I would sacrifice 1000 strangers to save my family if I had to.
King Henry V
08-03-2005, 10:28
The death penalty should only be used when there is no doubt whatsoever as to the guilt of the person convicted, and if the crime is very severe. In some cases the crimes comitted show that the perpetrator is not human at all, therefore does not deserve the same treatment.
Voigtkampf
08-03-2005, 15:45
The Cubical side is the greatest. All hail me.
Tough choice between:
“Your faith in geometry will be your undoing.”
“Twice the pride, double the fall.”
And, my favorite atm,
“Dark Side; be there or be square.”
@ Pindar: That is not what I was driving at. War is a different matter altogether. You are kinda insinuating that the only way to protect society from the worst of domestic criminals is to execute them, when (IMHO) this is not necessarily the case. Yes, it is more efficient, and permanent, but it is that permanency which disturbs me about capital punishment... There's no rewind button. No compensation can be made to that rare creature: the wrongly accused. It's just lights out. This is why my current opinion on capital punishment errs on the side of caution. I can't shrug off collateral damage as easily as certain others in this discussion.
The vague point that I was dancing around earlier in the thread is that I believe we should be advanced enough as a society to not have to incorporate primeval pack/herd concepts like utilitarianism and efficiency when we consider the value of a human life. Once again, I'm having trouble explaining myself, haha...
But if life cannot be measured by such a crass yardstick then human life must be something more than just a warm body.
A reverence for human life, to have any meaning, must incorporate the spiritual side of our lives. If not, how do we differ from cattle or chickens?
Doesn't our conduct give value to our lives, and cannot that same conduct take it away?
Well said, mate. At various points in my life, it is this same idea which has swayed me to be in favour of the death penalty. Forfeiture of a right to exist through despicable acts. As others on the board have said, though, I think that capital punishment exists largely as a cathartic form of retribution for society. That's not good enough for me personally, and rationally.
Strike For The South
08-04-2005, 05:45
BROCKTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- A man lifting his infant daughter out of his car was killed in an apparent case of road rage by a motorist "who obviously exploded" and shot him four times at close range in front of dozens of witnesses, authorities said.
The victim's 10-month-old girl was covered with blood but uninjured when police found her in a car seat on the floor of the vehicle.
Walter R. Bishop, 60, who was taking medication for depression, was arrested Tuesday and charged with first-degree murder in the death of 27-year-old Sandro Andrade. He pleaded innocent and was ordered held without bail; a hearing was scheduled for August 26.
Plymouth District Attorney Timothy J. Cruz said Bishop had made a calculated decision to "shoot a man in cold blood in broad daylight on the streets of Brockton."
Police Chief Paul Studenski described it as a case of road rage.
Bishop's attorney, Kevin Reddington, said Andrade had provoked his client during a traffic altercation.
"We have a homicide that resulted from a circumstance where somebody picked a fight with an individual who obviously exploded," Reddington said. Bishop, a former soldier and security guard, had recently begun taking two medications for depression, he said.
Bishop told investigators he was driving his wife to the train station when Andrade's vehicle backed toward him on Main Street, Cruz said. The two exchanged heated words.
"He said his wife was scared, and he said he was angry at that encounter," Cruz said of Bishop. "He said he made up his mind right there that he had to do something."
After dropping his wife off, he allegedly returned to the scene of the confrontation, pointed a handgun through an open window and fired, police said.
"Pop! Pop! Pop! Pop! Four shots. It sounded like a cap gun," Louis McPhee, the manager of a car wash across the street, told The Boston Globe. "The guy was lying there in his own blood with a hole in his head and his arm still on the baby."
Bishop left before police arrived, but witnesses gave investigators his license plate number and police found him at his home.
Police said Bishop has a valid handgun license.
What vile scum eh this is why we need the death penalty
...who was taking medication for depression, ...
....What vile scum eh this is why we need the death penalty
Sounds like this guy has a "Mental illness". I am sure we all know people with some level of mental illness. When they are under the influence of this, they may not think "rationally".
Currently, society does not treat "Mental Illness" with the same respect that they give to other illnesses. This is wrong and people should be treated with respect, if they have it. We should look after people with "Mental Illness", so that events like what happended above do not occur.
In the case above, some blame needs to be pointed at society for not doing enough and therefore the man is not solely to blame, and should not be "killed". However, he should be placed in a secure facility until he is "better", however long that takes.
Strike For The South
08-04-2005, 06:18
Sounds like this guy has a "Mental illness". I am sure we all know people with some level of mental illness. When they are under the influence of this, they may not think "rationally".
Currently, society does not treat "Mental Illness" with the same respect that they give to other illnesses. This is wrong and people should be treated with respect, if they have it. We should look after people with "Mental Illness", so that events like what happended above do not occur.
In the case above, some blame needs to be pointed at society for not doing enough and therefore the man is not solely to blame, and should not be "killed". However, he should be placed in a secure facility until he is "better", however long that takes.
[/QUOTE]Plymouth District Attorney Timothy J. Cruz said Bishop had made a calculated decision to "shoot a man in cold blood in broad daylight on the streets of Brockton.".[/QUOTE]
Ah yes a calculated decision sounds like an illness to me
Woulda been better if he didn't have ready access to a firearm...
I'm sorry, I couldn't help it... ;-)
Strike For The South
08-04-2005, 06:23
Woulda been better if he didn't have ready access to a firearm...
I'm sorry, I couldn't help it... ;-)
Thats for another thread ~D
I am beginning to understand that quite a few "Americans" are really "ruthless" people and lack even any understanding.
Don't look right ? Kill them (see KKK history, Native Indian History)
Don't believe right ? Kill them (see answer to Terrorism thread)
Don't feel right in the head ? Kill them (see posts above)
...
One day. Too old ? Kill them (refer logan run).
Be wary of the direction you are heading in when you condone the state for killing individuals. One day it might be you. All it takes is a law change.
Strike For The South
08-04-2005, 06:30
I am beginning to understand that quite a few "Americans" are really "ruthless" people and lack even any understanding.
Don't look right ? Kill them (see KKK history, Native Indian History)
Don't believe right ? Kill them (see answer to Terrorism thread)
Don't feel right in the head ? Kill them (see posts above)
...
One day. Too old ? Kill them (refer logan run).
Be wary of the direction you are heading in when you condone the state for killing individuals. One day it might be you. All it takes is a law change.
This isn't about race or religon its about a man who made a desicon to kill a young father with the infant in his arms. If that makes me "ruthless" so be it
P.S I only support the death penalty for murder and only that if they try to change the law for a lesser crime ill be the first one yelling
Jeez, maybe the thread about arrogant Europeans was right.
I don't think I am being arrogant. Also I am not European.
Just I do not support the state having the right to kill it's own citizens, to which they have been elected to represent. As I said the "Death Penalty" is a slippery slope to follow.
In some places the "society" allows the rape of women because of some family member offence. This is wrong. Some women get stoned to death for adultery. The "Death Penalty" is from a "barbaric age", and soceity should evolve from it.
Speaking of the Death Penalty, I know they let you choose how you're gonna die here in the US, but do we have an option for beheading? After watching a documentary that included some info on lethal injection, I think i'd much rather be decapitated if I ever wind up on Death Row.
~:cheers:
I'd take decapitation over the State-approved methods, anyday. Although I'd want either a guillotine or a master axeman. A botched beheading could be nasty...
I read somewhere recently that crucifixion is still legal in two countries... That would NOT be cool. I'll try to google some more on this.
Thats for another thread ~D
Yeah, sorry... I knew I was being bad when I posted it... I'm not an anti-gun fanatic... honestly...
Just I do not support the state having the right to kill it's own citizens, to which they have been elected to represent. As I said the "Death Penalty" is a slippery slope to follow.
.
Woulda been better if he didn't have ready access to a firearm...
I'm sorry, I couldn't help it... ;-)
So do you support abortion? (And I am primarily talking about abortions that take place in teh 2nd and 3rd Trimester.)
Which is the state allowing the individual to chose to kill another human being that just happens to be in the woman's womb.
See two can play that game. ~D :duel:
Ja'chyra
08-04-2005, 08:32
Some interesting points raised.
Sounds like this guy has a "Mental illness". I am sure we all know people with some level of mental illness. When they are under the influence of this, they may not think "rationally".
Currently, society does not treat "Mental Illness" with the same respect that they give to other illnesses. This is wrong and people should be treated with respect, if they have it. We should look after people with "Mental Illness", so that events like what happended above do not occur.
In the case above, some blame needs to be pointed at society for not doing enough and therefore the man is not solely to blame, and should not be "killed". However, he should be placed in a secure facility until he is "better", however long that takes.
This my friend is crap. People need to stand up and take responsibility for their own actions, if they are unable to e.g. mentally unable to take responsibility then it is the duty of their families to do so, only in the case where there is no one to help them does society as a whole come in.
Even if he was mentally ill, he shot a man in front of his baby daughter, he needs to be punished not treated. If he can be treated at the same time then all the better but the man is a murderer, you don't put him in a hospital for six months pronounce him cured and set him free, that's just wrong.
The vague point that I was dancing around earlier in the thread is that I believe we should be advanced enough as a society to not have to incorporate primeval pack/herd concepts like utilitarianism and efficiency when we consider the value of a human life. Once again, I'm having trouble explaining myself, haha...
Fair point, but, what is the value of a human life? Are all lives equally valuable?
Before we start with the "Everyone has a right to life", no they don't, if they did there would be no death, no abortion etc.
Ok, individuals. Is everyones life of equal importance, I would say that if you answeres yes then you're wrong. For example, would you place more value on the life of your wife or mother than that of a thrice convicted paedophile, I sure as hell would (strange saying that, as hell isn't sure at all, anyway) and I would say that if you don't you seriously need to sort out your values.
So I would say that there is a case for the death sentence, and the case in example may be one but I'm not sure without knowing more about it. But saying that he can't take responsibility becuase he was depressed is ridiculous.
@ Pindar: That is not what I was driving at. War is a different matter altogether. You are kinda insinuating that the only way to protect society from the worst of domestic criminals is to execute them, when (IMHO) this is not necessarily the case. Yes, it is more efficient, and permanent, but it is that permanency which disturbs me about capital punishment... There's no rewind button. No compensation can be made to that rare creature: the wrongly accused. It's just lights out. This is why my current opinion on capital punishment errs on the side of caution. I can't shrug off collateral damage as easily as certain others in this discussion.
War and capital punishment are both state sponsored killing. If one is opposed to state sponsored killing then both activities would need to be rejected. If the permanency of error is the issue: killing the innocent, this again applies to both cases. The wrong man may be convicted and subsequently executed, in war: friendly fire, collateral damaged etc. are terms used for the unintended death of innocents. The key difference between the two actions is that in a criminal trial, evidence has been presented and the convicted has been found guilty based upon that evidence. In a war scenario: victims of friendly fire, collateral damage etc. have no guilt that can be assigned. Further, such occurs on a far greater scale. It is therefore a very strained view that would recognize war as legitimate but exclude capital punishment.
ue point that I was dancing around earlier in the thread is that I believe we should be advanced enough as a society to not have to incorporate primeval pack/herd concepts like utilitarianism and efficiency when we consider the value of a human life. Once again, I'm having trouble explaining myself, haha...
Some of the bedrock justifications for government are derived from utility and efficiency arguments. The tenor of your rhetoric would seem to suggest we should move beyond such notions. This of course is an anarchist view.
The taking of human life is of such importance that it is reserved to the state alone. It thereby reflects the measure of the collective will. The value of human life can be measured by the degree of retribution brought to bare to preserve its sanctity. A system that does not demand the greatest sacrifice from those who have taken life violates the basic equity that informs systems of justice.
I am beginning to understand that quite a few "Americans" are really "ruthless" people and lack even any understanding.
The "Death Penalty" is from a "barbaric age", and soceity should evolve from it.
A society that does not have the wherewithal to protect itself in the strongest terms necessary against internal threat will not be able muster the strength of will to protect itself against external threat. Like the prim little girl who squirms when her shepard uncle shoots a wolf moving on his sheep: those who through urbanization and appealing to the vagaries of the sophisticate have cut themselves off from the realities of life illustrate in stark fashion the social maturity that separates the slave from the free man.
Sasaki Kojiro
08-04-2005, 17:34
Woulda been better if he didn't have ready access to a firearm...
I'm sorry, I couldn't help it... ;-)
He'd have hit him with the car instead.
I don't see the initial post as an argument against the death penalty but rather for reform of the criminal trial process.
The war argument is a good one.
Goofball
08-04-2005, 18:21
"Police said Bishop has a valid handgun license."
What vile scum eh this is why we need the death penalty
No, this is why we don't need handguns...
scooter_the_shooter
08-04-2005, 18:34
No we need them to be safe from wackos like him.
Is this an argument that society doesn't have the right to kill in order to protect itself? If so, then you must support disbanding the military. If not, then you have already placed a value over and above the preservation of life.
Now if society does have the right to kill this should apply to threats within as well as without.The right to kill in defense isn't the same as killing in retribution. Who are you protecting by killing someone who is already locked away from society for the rest of their life?
Forced Labor for a fixed period without possibility of getting out early is something i'd support. But good luck getting any liberal, and some conservatives, to agree with that.I agree, prison should be an unpleasant experience to serve as a deterrent. For non-lifers, they should have strict, harsh treatment with the opportunity for education or learning job skills. For lifers, just warehouse them.
Your protecting everyone's tax dollars.
Off with their heads!
Meh, I've read that, as it stands, it's cheaper to put someone away for life than it is to execute someone with all of th legal challenges and appeals involved. And once they implement emperor Xiahou's prison reforms it could cost 1/3 what it currently does to keep prisoners.
:charge:
scooter_the_shooter
08-04-2005, 19:46
bullets cost to much... a rope is cheap and can be used again.
The Stranger
08-04-2005, 19:57
Criminals will get guns whether the law says they can or not. This isn't like cushy Europe, here in america you can get anything you want if you look hard enough.
The only viable solution is to encourage people to buy guns, and give free public training courses in proper firearms use.
so their kids can steal one and shoot his friend for loosing a game of dragonball on the PS2
scooter_the_shooter
08-04-2005, 20:01
Not if part of the training programs include eddie eagle for kids. http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/
Posted by Pindar
Is this an argument that society doesn't have the right to kill in order to protect itself? If so, then you must support disbanding the military. If not, then you have already placed a value over and above the preservation of life.
Now if society does have the right to kill this should apply to threats within as well as without.
The right to kill in defense isn't the same as killing in retribution. Who are you protecting by killing someone who is already locked away from society for the rest of their life?
State sponsored killing is the common link. Further, retribution and defense are not mutually exclusive positions. Equity demands proper redress for murder. Moreover, murder by the act alone is an attack on society. Society is justified in removing that threat, but is under no obligation to maintain a determined threat indefinitely.
If man is a social animal then forced removal to the periphery of society for life is a barbarism.
State sponsored killing is the common link. Further, retribution and defense are not mutually exclusive positions. Equity demands proper redress for murder. Moreover, murder by the act alone is an attack on society. Society is justified in removing that threat, but is under no obligation to maintain a determined threat indefinitely. Both solutions remove the threat to society- one does not needlessly kill a person, the other does. Again, the idea with the military and defense is necessary killing. I don't believe that "take no prisoners" in combat is considered an appropriate approach to combat anymore. Nor in modern society are you justified in hunting down your mugger to shoot them after the fact.
If man is a social animal then forced removal to the periphery of society for life is a barbarism.So death is better?
sharrukin
08-04-2005, 21:21
Meh, I've read that, as it stands, it's cheaper to put someone away for life than it is to execute someone with all of th legal challenges and appeals involved. And once they implement emperor Xiahou's prison reforms it could cost 1/3 what it currently does to keep prisoners.
:charge:
If Emperor Xiahou was running for public office then what you say might be true but until that glorious day arrives...
LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE CASE
Assume $40,000/year cell cost for 50 years, and $75,000 for trial & appeals = $2,075,000
cells are assumed to be cheaper and trials cheap and brief.
DEATH PENALTY CASE
Assume $60,000/year cell cost for 8 years and $1.5 million for trial & appeals = $1,980,000
cells are assumed to expensive and very long and costly trials.
Assume the life without parole cells will not be as secure as death penalty cells. Lets be generous and assume the death penalty cells would cost much more.
Grossly over estimate that death penalty cases will cost twenty times life without parole cases; 20 X $75,000 = $1.5 million.
This does not include adjusted costs for inflation which would greatly increase the costs for the life without parole cases.
Even at exaggerated costs for the death penalty cases, life without parole is NOT cheaper and if we use realistic estimates it becomes even more costly.
Silver Rusher
08-04-2005, 22:03
IMHO the death penalty should not be abolished but the case should be reveiwd many times over just in case. And while the death isn't great at deterring crime it gives many people (including me) a sense that justice has been done and a murder will never be let out or be able to live in prison
Of course you are going to say that. You're from texas.:laugh4:
Crazed Rabbit
08-04-2005, 22:34
No, this is why we don't need handguns...
Actually, those who have concealed handgun licenses are much less likely to be criminals than the average person.
In Florida, they are 400 less likely to be criminals. If the whole state was made up of them, you wouldn't need cops.
Crazed Rabbit
Goofball
08-04-2005, 22:47
The right to kill in defense isn't the same as killing in retribution. Who are you protecting by killing someone who is already locked away from society for the rest of their life?
*sniffs, wipes a tear from his eye, blows nose loudly*
I don't know what it is Xiahou, but sometimes you say something so completely correct and beautiful in its simplicity that I get all choked up...
:bow:
I agree, prison should be an unpleasant experience to serve as a deterrent. For non-lifers, they should have strict, harsh treatment with the opportunity for education or learning job skills. For lifers, just warehouse them.
Again, I agree. I think all prisoners should get the same treatment that Canadian Military prisoners get. For the majority of the day, they spend their time doing "jobs" that are extremely time-consuming and attention-to-detail requiring, yet the jobs themselves are completely useless and serve no purpose (i.e. spit-polishing door knobs, painting rocks, ironing socks, etc...). Forcing somebody to do useless labor is very humbling, and also takes away any pleasure they might feel from accomplishing a task well done.
Anyway, I think non-lifers should have to do this stuff for most of the day, then have maybe two or three hours set aside each day for education and other life-skill type programs.
As for lifers, I'm with Xiahou: stack 'em and rack 'em somewhere. Give them just enough food and water to stay healthy, but no smokes, no TV, no conjugal visits, no anything fun.
Bear in mind that some "features" of a stay in jail are designed not to punish or educate the prisoner but to ensure the smooth running of the facility during their incarceration and their chances of remaining "straight" upon release.
Especially regarding non-lifers why would you make life inside humiliating, boring and brutalising. So those who come in leave as colder, harder people? Nonsense. Discipline is not about humiliation or brutality when it comes to prisoners who will be released back into society.
As for lifers then by all means make it tough. But there must be something to strive to, to achieve as well. Or else you increase the likelihood of disorder, riot, sadism etc etc.
As for the death penalty, I scorn those who speak of the value of life and in the next breath are willing to take it away. Whether you use wordy prose or talk of revenge does not matter. If one innocent dies through the mistakes of our legal system then we all become murderers.
The comparison with war is a good one and I cannot deny it. However since justice serves society while warfare serves the state I do not feel the two are the same at all. You forget the furious chaotic nature of war and underplay the personal, deliberate aspects of justice. I for one would not like to see the state killing its own citizens in cold blood.
sharrukin
08-05-2005, 01:22
As for the death penalty, I scorn those who speak of the value of life and in the next breath are willing to take it away. Whether you use wordy prose or talk of revenge does not matter. If one innocent dies through the mistakes of our legal system then we all become murderers.
Does that include the mistakes made by the legal system when they let some killer escape or get parole released to kill again? Or do those innocents not count?
If Emperor Xiahou was running for public office then what you say might be true but until that glorious day arrives...
LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE CASE
Assume $40,000/year cell cost for 50 years, and $75,000 for trial & appeals = $2,075,000
cells are assumed to be cheaper and trials cheap and brief.
DEATH PENALTY CASE
Assume $60,000/year cell cost for 8 years and $1.5 million for trial & appeals = $1,980,000
cells are assumed to expensive and very long and costly trials. Were those just your guestimates or were you basing them on something?
Here (http://www.mindspring.com/~phporter/econ.html) is an essay entitled "The Economics of Capital Punishment" that has many sourced references to the comparative costs of the death sentence vs life in prison. Here are a few excerpts....
A Duke University study found... "The death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million per execution over the costs of a non-death penalty murder case with a sentence of imprisonment for life." ( The costs of processing murder cases in North Carolina / Philip J. Cook, Donna B. Slawson ; with the assistance of Lori A. Gries. [Durham, NC] : Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy, Duke University, 1993.)
Figures from the General Accounting Office are close to these results. Total annual costs for all U.S. Prisons, State and Federal, was $17.7 billion in 1994 along with a total prison population of 1.1 million inmates. That amounts to $16100 per inmate/year.
(GOA report and testimony FY-97 GGD-97-15 )
From this; the cost of keeping a 25-year-old inmate for 50 years at present amounts to $805,000. Assuming 75 years as an average life span, the $805,000 figure would be the cost of life in prison. So roughly it's costing us $2 million more to execute someone than it would cost to keep them in jail for life.
Posted by Pindar
State sponsored killing is the common link. Further, retribution and defense are not mutually exclusive positions. Equity demands proper redress for murder. Moreover, murder by the act alone is an attack on society. Society is justified in removing that threat, but is under no obligation to maintain a determined threat indefinitely.
Both solutions remove the threat to society- one does not needlessly kill a person, the other does. Again, the idea with the military and defense is necessary killing. I don't believe that "take no prisoners" in combat is considered an appropriate approach to combat anymore. Nor in modern society are you justified in hunting down your mugger to shoot them after the fact.
Capital punishment is not advocacy of needless killing. War is not advocacy for needless killing. Now one may argue that given one could hold the guilty in prison indefinitely is an option and so their death is needless. One could also argue that by withholding the bombing of an enemy installation one could ensure no innocents would be lost. Both approaches fail to understand the base notion at hand. The state is empowered to kill. This is done by soldiers, police, juries etc. The state further acts as the means through which justice is served. The most basic notion of justice concerns equity meaning: proper redress (quid pro quo). The only way to redress the killing of an innocent and the improper assumption of state power by a private citizen is through the death of the perpetrator. This protects society against further attack and answers the calls for justice.
References to "take no prisoners" and vigilantism do not apply.
If man is a social animal then forced removal to the periphery of society for life is a barbarism.
So death is better?
Yes.
There are three options. One, life imprisonment which is torture and fails to address the need for retributive equity. Two, exile where the murderer is cast outside society. This then makes society responsible for releasing a predator on another people and also fails to address the original wrong. Three, death. This removes the stain and meets the basic requirements of justice.
So do you support abortion? (And I am primarily talking about abortions that take place in teh 2nd and 3rd Trimester.)
I am a moderate. I do support abortion, but only in the 1st tri-mester.
A society that does not have the wherewithal to protect itself...
These Countries (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html) have accepted the death penalty is wrong. The USA, as well as Singapore and Japan are the only "Developed" countries to still have it. However, I am not aware of when the latter two carried out one recently. But even if they have not in the same volume as others. If other countries can "ban" it why can't the US; the supposedly most developed country in the world. They all can't be wrong.
Even some States have seen the light
States Without the Death Penalty Have Better Record on Homicide Rates
A new survey by the New York Times found that states without the death penalty have lower homicide rates than states with the death penalty. The Times reports that ten of the twelve states without the death penalty have homicide rates below the national average, whereas half of the states with the death penalty have homicide rates above. During the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48% - 101% higher than in states without the death penalty. "I think Michigan made a wise decision 150 years ago," said the state's governor, John Engler, a Republican, referring to the state's abolition of the death penalty in 1846. "We're pretty proud of the fact that we don't have the death penalty." (New York Times, 9/22/00)LINK (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=167)
Why can't all the states. It is certainly not working as a deterrent.
...
LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE CASE
Assume $40,000/year cell cost for 50 years, and $75,000 for trial & appeals = $2,075,000
cells are assumed to be cheaper and trials cheap and brief.
DEATH PENALTY CASE
Assume $60,000/year cell cost for 8 years and $1.5 million for trial & appeals = $1,980,000
cells are assumed to expensive and very long and costly trials.
If the inmate was contibuting to his costs, by working you may be able to reduce the costs by up to $20,000 a year more than halving the costs of keeping him you estimated. Or making a profit if we use Xiahou's example of $16,000/year.
A society that does not have the wherewithal to protect itself in the strongest terms necessary against internal threat will not be able muster the strength of will to protect itself against external threat.
These Countries (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html) have accepted the death penalty is wrong. The USA, as well as Singapore and Japan are the only "Developed" countries to still have it. However, I am not aware of when the latter two carried out one recently. But even if they have not in the same volume as others. If other countries can "ban" it why can't the US; the supposedly most developed country in the world. They all can't be wrong.
You did not understand the thrust of my comment. Those nations (developed was the term was it?) that have banned capital punishment in many ways exhibit the social weakness and moral myopia that leads to their dependency on other stronger wills for their survival.
Papewaio
08-05-2005, 02:20
You are stating that every democracy in the world bar 3 is morally weak because they humanely deal with their criminals?
So you are advocating the death sentence of prisoners as a more moral position. Hence the Japanese killing POWs in WWII is the moral high ground?
.. exhibit the social weakness and moral myopia that leads to their dependency on other stronger wills for their survival.I consider it an "intellectual" strength, not a social weakness, to consider the fuller picture as to why an individual acts the way he does.
Killing a person (Death Penalty), is a bit like removing the weed, but leaving the roots in place. It looks good initially, but after a time it returns again. Unless you address the "root" causes, e.g possibly poverty, education, health services, etc. the situation will remain.
A lot countries where the "Ban" is in place, have systems in place to address these needs, like free healthcare, free education and good social welfare systems, to help people before they fall. NOTE: Even some US states have banned it too!
Pindar, I feel that this concept of "Equity" you are espousing is no more than a slightly more high-brow term for "An eye for an eye".
Again, in reference to my earlier post:
1. Execution is not the only means by which a society can protect itself from a convicted criminal.
2. I reject the notion that life imprisonment is worse than execution. The imprisoned criminal can still extract something from life, no matter how limited that life is due to his prior actions. I'm sure you've heard of the Birdman of Alcatraz. An example of what I'm talking about. He led a productive life whilst imprisoned, even relative to many people who are not. He would not have had that opportunity if executed.
Productivity
08-05-2005, 03:50
This does not include adjusted costs for inflation which would greatly increase the costs for the life without parole cases.
You are confusing real and nominal terms. You cannot compare something which costs $1 today, and $1.10 tomorrow, and say that it costs more tomorrow, if tomorrow your income rises to $1.10 from $1 today. Purchasing power is held, there is no change of wealth. Inflation as it currently is only has mininal effects, and when terms are bought back to a real benchmark value, you will find that your inflation argument is irrelevant.
sharrukin
08-05-2005, 05:23
Were those just your guestimates or were you basing them on something?
I was basing them on current data.
California Department Of Corrections
Facts And Figures -- Second Quarter 2004
Avg. yearly cost: per inmate, $30,929
Illinois
Stateville Correctional Center
The Stateville Correctional Center is a maximum-security facility
(Information provided from the Fiscal Year 2003 Annual Report)
Average Annual Cost Per Inmate: $33,665.00
Eastern State Penitentiary in Philadelphia
"The average annual cost for housing an inmate in a state prison is about $22,000; at SCI Greene, it is $22,940. Department of Corrections officials said figures weren't available for the average cost of its maximum-security inmates, but nationwide, a maximum-security facility costs $50,000 per prisoner per year or more -- more than tuition at some of the nation's best universities."
That's average, but a life sentence cell would be a higher security cell and would cost more than average and a death penalty cell more than that.
Information from the Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin; It costs $100,000 to build a new prison cell. It costs $200,000 over
25 years to pay interest on the construction debt.
Average health care costs per inmate currently exceed $5,500 annually, compared with less than $4,000 three years ago.
Telephone companies such as AT&T and MCI, for example, compete for prisoners, who make $1 billion worth of calls every year.
Death penalty trials cost an average of 48% more than the average cost of trials in which prosecutors seek life imprisonment.
In its review of death penalty expenses, the State of Kansas concluded that capital cases are 70% more expensive than comparable non-death penalty cases.
The study counted death penalty case costs through to execution and found that the median death penalty case costs $1.26 million.
Non-death penalty cases were counted through to the end of incarceration and were found to have a median cost of $740,000.
For death penalty cases, the pre-trial and trial level expenses were the most expensive part, 49% of the total cost.
Quote:
Figures from the General Accounting Office are close to these results. Total annual costs for all U.S. Prisons, State and Federal, was $17.7 billion in 1994 along with a total prison population of 1.1 million inmates. That amounts to $16100 per inmate/year.
(GOA report and testimony FY-97 GGD-97-15 )
From this; the cost of keeping a 25-year-old inmate for 50 years at present amounts to $805,000. Assuming 75 years as an average life span, the $805,000 figure would be the cost of life in prison. So roughly it's costing us $2 million more to execute someone than it would cost to keep them in jail for life.
The problem is that you are talking about those in minimum security, out on remand and on parole as well when you use figures like these. It costs $3,500 on average for each parolee. Not quite the same thing.
Quote:
A Duke University study found... "The death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million per execution over the costs of a non-death penalty murder case with a sentence of imprisonment for life." ( The costs of processing murder cases in North Carolina / Philip J. Cook, Donna B. Slawson ; with the assistance of Lori A. Gries. [Durham, NC] : Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy, Duke University, 1993.)
They not even quoting the study correctly.
First off, the Duke University study assumes the 16,000$ figure for minimum security. That is of course ridiculous. Someone who is sent to prison for life doesn't go to minimum security. Duke University graduates are not stupid in the conventional sense so they know perfectly well what they are doing and why they lowballed the figure, as do I. They are against the death penalty and have adjusted the figures to show what results they want. "The operating cost of a year in prison ranges from $16 thousand per inmate for minimum security to $23 thousand per inmate for close security." This is from the Duke University study. These figures are from a june, 1991 DOC study. The above figures for 2003-2004 are closer to the figures I gave.
They also assume the defendant who is sentenced to life doesn't actually serve life but rather serves 20 years.
"the defendant serving 20 years in prison" This is from the Duke University study.
They further assume that the costs for other unrelated death penalty cases that fail or do not result in an execution are to be included in the averaged cost of the death penalty case. They call this the "cohort" perspective. There study is premised on the idea that only 10% of capital cases result in an actual execution. "This last estimate is quite sensitive to our assumption that ten percent of death-sentenced defendants are ultimately executed. These and other assumptions and qualifications are included throughout the report." Texas for example, has executed about one-third of the people it has sentenced to death. Those who were not executed often had the sentence commuted to life imprisonment, but by the logic of this study that cost would become attached to some other death sentence case.
"This figure includes the extra costs of capital prosecutions that do not result in the imposition of the death penalty,"
They also include the annual rental values per square foot of space in the courthouses for reasons that aren't really clear other than to pad the numbers. It's not as if they wouldn't be paying these rental costs if a case of burglary was being tried. This point was made by the Maryland Division of Legislative Services.
"There are, however, far different estimates in a Fiscal Note prepared by the Maryland Division of Legislative Services (DLS) for the 2004 General Assembly in connection with a bill which would have repealed the death penalty. DLS found repeal of the death penalty would decrease General Fund expenditures for the Office of the Public Defender by $1.3 million annually but would not have a significant effect on over all state operations or finances. DLS also found that the effect on State’s Attorneys’ offices would be minimal as staff and associated operating expenses would be used on other cases."
However what they call the "single case" perspective shows something entirely different. This is from the Duke University study.
"The only previous study that is based on a direct measurement of costs for a sample of cases was conducted at the request of the Maryland House Appropriations Committee to provide information on the fiscal impact of processing death penalty cases in the state. 6 The committee appointed to perform this research was able to obtain adequate information on 32 murder cases (out of a statewide total of 80) that were capitally prosecuted between July 1979 and March 1984. The average sum of costs to the state for prosecution and defense attorneys, court time, and expenses was $48,200 for the 23 cases that were tried, and $14,300 for the 9 cases that resulted in a guilty plea. There is no information in this study on the average cost of a noncapital murder case, and nothing on postconviction costs."
Another widely cited study, by Margot Garey, appeared in a symposium on the death penalty published in the University of California at Davis Law Review in 1985. Her estimate for the cost of a capital trial in California was far higher than the Maryland estimate; the author concluded that a capital
murder trial cost $201,510 more than a noncapital murder trial on the average.7 Garey did not analyze a sample of specific cases, but rather pieced together information from interviews with attorneys and from published information on the various components of total cost. While the assumptions behind some of her numbers are not always clear, it appears that she assumed that voir dire would take 40 days longer in a capital case than a noncapital case, and that the trial would last 30 days longer. Garey went on to offer estimates of the cost of the appeal ($100,000) and of postconviction proceedings ($212,202) in capital cases.
A similar though less thorough effort was undertaken by the New York State Defenders Association in 1982.8 It assumed that a capital case would require a four week trial, and estimated the defense costs for such a trial. Prosecution costs were then stipulated to be double that of defense costs. The total cost to the state of a capital trial was estimated to be $1.6 million. Estimates of the costs of subsequent stages were also provided: $160,000 for the direct appeal following a sentence of death and $170,000 for, the petition to the United States Supreme Court after the sentence is affirmed at the state level.
Total cost $1.6 million for a death penalty case as the highest real life estimate.
And here's the kicker. Even based on there own very biased figures there is STILL a savings based on a comparison of a single capital case to a life case.
"The estimated cost savings depend critically on the percentage of defendants executed, and the elapsed time from sentence to execution. For example, assuming an elapsed time of 10 years and a 20 percent execution rate yields an estimate of $33 thousand per death sentence imposed; if the execution rate is only 10 percent, the cost saving falls to $17 thousand."
Their figures and calculations
Execution Percentage; 10% (1 in 10 are executed)
Total Costs per Death Penalty $216,461 X 10 = $2.16 million
Total Costs per Execution $2.16 million
Execution Percentage; 20% (1 in 5 are executed)
Total Costs per Death Penalty $225,377 X 5 = $1,126,885
Total Costs per Execution $1.13 million
Execution Percentage; 30% (1 in 3.33 are executed)
Total Costs per Death Penalty $234,285 X 3.333 = $780,871
Total Costs per Execution $0.78 million
This is not honest in any way.
This is what we in the sticks call a hatchet job!
Capital punishment is not advocacy of needless killing. War is not advocacy for needless killing. Now one may argue that given one could hold the guilty in prison indefinitely is an option and so their death is needless. One could also argue that by withholding the bombing of an enemy installation one could ensure no innocents would be lost. Both approaches fail to understand the base notion at hand.The comparison between executing a prisoner and bombing an enemy installation during war isn't valid. One is a clear threat and an objective towards victory- the other is not. There is a clear need for one soldier to shoot an enemy soldier during combat operations. However, if enemy soldiers are captured, they are no longer an immediate threat and it is not acceptable to kill them. If someone comes at me with a knife, I am justified in defending myself- however, if the person flees or is arrested by authorities, I no longer have justification to shoot him.
The state is empowered to kill. This is done by soldiers, police, juries etc. The state further acts as the means through which justice is served. The most basic notion of justice concerns equity meaning: proper redress (quid pro quo). The only way to redress the killing of an innocent and the improper assumption of state power by a private citizen is through the death of the perpetrator. This protects society against further attack and answers the calls for justice.So the argument boils down to eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth? They have killed so they must be killed? You're honesty is refreshing, many death penalty advocates don't admit that its a matter of vengeance.
So death is better?
Yes.I'll allow that to speak for itself.
So you are advocating the death sentence of prisoners as a more moral position. Hence the Japanese killing POWs in WWII is the moral high ground?
Japan was not a democracy during WWII. POWs were not convicted criminals. Neither point is relevant to the discussion.
Japan was not a democracy during WWII. POWs were not convicted criminals. Neither point is relevant to the discussion.
So, as soon as there's "due process", a mandate from the voting public, and the correct papers signed in triplicate, it becomes legitimate and somehow "right"?
Wow, bureaucracy as morality... :dizzy2:
Pindar, I feel that this concept of "Equity" you are espousing is no more than a slightly more high-brow term for "An eye for an eye".
Of course! Equity is a fundamental principle of jurisprudence. It is the basis for the idea of responsibility and punishment. This is seen in everything from contract law through to the criminal courts.
Again, in reference to my earlier post:
1. Execution is not the only means by which a society can protect itself from a convicted criminal.
2. I reject the notion that life imprisonment is worse than execution. The imprisoned criminal can still extract something from life, no matter how limited that life is due to his prior actions. I'm sure you've heard of the Birdman of Alcatraz. An example of what I'm talking about. He led a productive life whilst imprisoned, even relative to many people who are not. He would not have had that opportunity if executed.
Retort
1)If there are acts that are so contrary to the social fabric that return to society is not an option then society is under no obligation to maintain said offender.
2)To harbor for an indefinite period one who has taken life does not, indeed can not, redress the act of murder.
3) Life imprisonment is cruel and unusual punishment as the detainee has no hope of return to society and is thereby prohibited from all the basic functions of society i.e.. marital life, raising a family, participating in the political process, work, freedom of action etc. (The Birdman was scum who killed a guard while in prison).
Originally Posted by Pindar
Japan was not a democracy during WWII. POWs were not convicted criminals. Neither point is relevant to the discussion.
So, as soon as there's "due process", a mandate from the voting public, and the correct papers signed in triplicate, it becomes legitimate and somehow "right"?
Wow, bureaucracy as morality
Alas, a judicial process to be legitimate must have popular consent otherwise it is tyranny.
Executing POWs has not been, nor is it, a proper scope of this discussion as being a soldier is not a criminal act: neither in Japan or the U.S.
I consider it an "intellectual" strength, not a social weakness, to consider the fuller picture as to why an individual acts the way he does.
Killing a person (Death Penalty), is a bit like removing the weed, but leaving the roots in place. It looks good initially, but after a time it returns again. Unless you address the "root" causes, e.g possibly poverty, education, health services, etc. the situation will remain.
A lot countries where the "Ban" is in place, have systems in place to address these needs, like free healthcare, free education and good social welfare systems, to help people before they fall. NOTE: Even some US states have banned it too!
Attacking the roots of crime is fine and a good thing to address. This does not negate the basic responsibility the rational soul has regarding their actions. It is this base culpability that is at issue. Those who kill for private purpose deserve to sow what they have wrought: death.
The comparison between executing a prisoner and bombing an enemy installation during war isn't valid. One is a clear threat and an objective towards victory- the other is not.
State sanctioned killing is the issue. If one recognizes the state does have a right to kill (even on a large scale those where no individual guilt can be assigned as in case of war: enemy combatants, friendly fire, collateral damage etc.) then it is incoherent to then argue the state cannot kill those quilty of henious acts against society.
So the argument boils down to eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth? They have killed so they must be killed? You're honesty is refreshing, many death penalty advocates don't admit that its a matter of vengeance.
Lex talionis is the Latin. It is foundational to jurisprudence. Vengeance suggests personal mallace. I do not wish to torture of mistreat the quilty. Thus my rejection of cruel punishments like life in prison. I simply expect justice and justice demands reciprocity.
Originally Posted by Xiahou
So death is better?
Originally Posted by Pindar
Yes.
Xiahou I'll allow that to speak for itself.
Indeed you should. Choosing death for the sake of principle goes to the very origins of our Republic.
Gimme a death sentance over a life sentance any day. It's not just cheaper, it's more humane.
Quite right.
A salute to all forms of jello geometry. ~:cheers:
It is this base culpability that is at issue.
That may be so. But so many developed countries (and many US states) still do not kill someone They all can't be wrong.
KILLING is WRONG !!
It sends the wrong example others. Remember a lot of people who kill may have limited intelligience and see "killing" as suitable punishment for "wrong" done to them, as the "state" thinks it is OK to kill.
State sanctioned killing is the issue. If one recognizes the state does have a right to kill (even on a large scale those where no individual guilt can be assigned as in case of war: enemy combatants, friendly fire, collateral damage etc.) then it is incoherent to then argue the state cannot kill those quilty of henious acts against society.First. Im not here to argue it's legality- it's not in dispute. But if one follows your logic that the state has an arbitrary right to kill, why does it need to stop at criminals? The state can kill anyone it likes- it has a right to. ~:confused:
Lex talionis is the Latin. It is foundational to jurisprudence. Vengeance suggests personal mallace. I do not wish to torture of mistreat the quilty. Thus my rejection of cruel punishments like life in prison. I simply expect justice and justice demands reciprocity.
Nonsense, take a survey of death row inmates and ask if they'd rather be dead or in jail. Further, if imprisonment equals torture, as you claim, how can you support any length of imprisonment? Everyone in our prisons are being tortured by being there? You believe it would be the "merciful" thing to kill all lifers?
ndeed you should. Choosing death for the sake of principle goes to the very origins of our Republic.In terms of self-sacrifice, yes. Not forcing death on others for your principles.
That may be so. But so many developed countries (and many US states) still do not kill someone They all can't be wrong.
So the logic here is numbers equal recitude? If the bulk of what one decides are developed nations thinks X then X is thereby correct. Is this really the tact you want to take?
KILLING is WRONG !!
You're a pacifist?
Voigtkampf
08-05-2005, 10:18
First. Im not here to argue it's legality- it's not in dispute. But if one follows your logic that the state has an arbitrary right to kill, why does it need to stop at criminals? The state can kill anyone it likes- it has a right to. ~:confused:
Because of the very same undisputable legality of its action, and illegal nature of random arbitrary killing.
The state has the right to kill those that break the laws of the society in such harsh manner that only final termination of the subject that has committed the said atrocity is a viable solution to restore the balance of the society. This ultimate punishment has several functions, retribution towards the offender and general intimidation to other possible offenders being probably the two most important ones.
Only under such conditions can judicial system come to the point where it can execute those who break the laws in according manner. Or do you argue against the death sentence out of fear that the state will, based on that right to kill, start killing anyone it fancies?
Nonsense, take a survey of death row inmates and ask if they'd rather be dead or in jail. Further, if imprisonment equals torture, as you claim, how can you support any length of imprisonment? Everyone in our prisons are being tortured by being there? You believe it would be the "merciful" thing to kill all lifers?
You forget the keyword; reciprocity.
First. Im not here to argue it's legality- it's not in dispute. But if one follows your logic that the state has an arbitrary right to kill, why does it need to stop at criminals? The state can kill anyone it likes- it has a right to. ~:confused:
I am not making a legal argument. The use of 'right' implies moral force. Are you challenging that the state has the right to kill?
Do you really think I am arguing for arbitrary killing? Has anything I've posted suggested the state can simply remove any and all at its leisure? The point revolves around base notions of justice and civil mandate. This should be obvious. With capital punishment I have argued that if there are such cases where the guilty are considered beyond reprieve and thereby would not be allowed to return to society then death is the proper conclusion. The simple working example has been cases of murder where a base equity can be demonstrated. I think I have been consistent in arguing this point.
Lax talionis is the Latin. It is foundational to jurisprudence. Vengeance suggests personal malice. I do not wish to torture of mistreat the guilty. Thus my rejection of cruel punishments like life in prison. I simply expect justice and justice demands reciprocity.
Nonsense, take a survey of death row inmates and ask if they'd rather be dead or in jail. Further, if imprisonment equals torture, as you claim, how can you support any length of imprisonment? Everyone in our prisons are being tortured by being there? You believe it would be the "merciful" thing to kill all lifers?
What is nonsense? Lex talionius isn't Latin? It isn't a fundamental principle of jurisprudence? I do wish to mistreat the guilty? I don't expect justice? This section you are responding to is making a linguistic/historical point and then follows with my own views: note the 'I' and 'my' in the latter sentences. I don't understand the nonsense charge.
Now in terms of death row opinion I doubt you have actually spoken to anyone on death row. I have: several in fact. I have seen the misery of their lives and heard report of it from their own lips. Many did think death preferable. But, for the sake of argument, if we assume that all death row inmates want to live, what of it? The base demands of justice are not effected by the sentiments of the guilty.
I have not argued imprisonment alone equals torture. I have argued that life in prison where there is no possible return is cruel and unusual punishment. I have also argued that in such cases death is more humane and proper.
In terms of self-sacrifice, yes. Not forcing death on others for your principles.
Does this mean those who served in the Continental Army shouldn't have fired their weapons and thereby 'forced death on others for (their) principles?' Better they simply sacrificed themselves?
The reality is killing in pursuit of the good informs our national experience.# Our nation came to be by the shedding of blood and is preserved by the same.
#Given recent confusion: no. I'm not justifying vigilantism here. Killing is a state authorized function.
Because of the very same undisputable legality of its action, and illegal nature of random arbitrary killing...
You forget the keyword; reciprocity.
Quite right.
What do you think of nations that have maximum imprisonment of 21 years, no matter what the crime was?
Does that include the mistakes made by the legal system when they let some killer escape or get parole released to kill again? Or do those innocents not count?
Such incidents are regrettable. However any subsequent killings are the crimes of the released man not, as is the case in the death sentence, of the courts and by extension ourselves.
I see that the state sanctioned killing arguments is still in full flow from our cold-hearted lawyer! I would still agrue that the state has no right to kill its own citizens. In fact I see that as a basic aspect of a free country. It is also why the recent Underground shooting disturbed me so (plus the aspect of extra-judicial killing). This is merest opinion however since I have no legal background.
I would suggest that if Pindar considers life imprisonment as torture even for the most heinous crimes (and therefore views death as a prefered solution) then surely it is torture for all? Is being jailed any more pleasant for five years than it is for life? Should all convicts be killed by the state?
For all those who weigh up the value of life and the cost of prison and decide that death is better than spending dollars I say shame on you. If you believe this then you forfeit the right to any moral high ground on any subject of life and death (for example, abortion). You would sell your own Grandmother for glue.
scooter_the_shooter
08-05-2005, 13:53
I belive if some one kills some one they should hang. And if the state fails to do it the citizens should lynch the animal. We have no use for people who cant follow a "do not kill" law so we should remove them. They should be shot or beat to death or hanged.
And when mistakes are made? We say sorry, hand them some compensation and a new ID and then... oh, wait, they re dead.
As for vigilante killings, where to begin. You can have lynchings if you want, but if they get the wrong man then all the lynch mob must by our own admission be executed themselves. Besides which their very actions break the "no killing" law. You may well run out of mobs. I'd rather not have to walk around scared because I look a bit like that guy who was in court the other week, or because people don't know the difference between a paedophile and a paediatrician.
I belive if some one kills some one they should hang. And if the state fails to do it the citizens should lynch the animal. We have no use for people who cant follow a "do not kill" law so we should remove them. They should be shot or beat to death or hanged.
That's an interesting option.
A killer get hanged, wich makes the hangers killers that must be hanged.
As some persons may not agree to hang others they are also hanged : how to refuse to kill an animal that is such a threat to society if you are not yourself an animal and a threat?
With this solution, when you will reach the last hanger alive you shall not have anyone not already hanged so the last hanger shall have to commit suicide by hanging.
I think this is the only way for crime to be completely eradicated : as cadavers cannot commit crime, kill everyone.
I see that the state sanctioned killing arguments is still in full flow from our cold-hearted lawyer! I would still agrue that the state has no right to kill its own citizens. In fact I see that as a basic aspect of a free country. It is also why the recent Underground shooting disturbed me so (plus the aspect of extra-judicial killing). This is merest opinion however since I have no legal background.
Hello, I guess this is directed at me: I'm the cold-hearted lawyer. :skull:
If the state has no right to kill its citizenry then that would apply to the police, as well I suppose, to any enabling mechanism of the government i.e. the military.
I would suggest that if Pindar considers life imprisonment as torture even for the most heinous crimes (and therefore views death as a prefered solution) then surely it is torture for all?
This doesn't follow from my view. The condemning feature of life imprisonment is the inability to return to society not simply incarceration.
Kagemusha
08-05-2005, 18:25
I dont believe in Death sentence,Because at somepoint you will execute innocent people.I think prisons are too nice places.Im talking about Finnish prisons.My opinion is that prisons should be turned into forced labour facilities.That way inmates wouldnt just spend our taxmoney but also be profitable.
Pindar.I dont quite understand why you think death sentence is societys self defence.I read your post where you stated that without death sentence State cant kill its citicens.Of course it can like police shooting an invidual in dangering situation.But surely police cant shoot someone when they have captured someone allready.I think a society can and shoudl use leathal force,but only when its absolutely necessary.When it has no other possibilities. :bow:
I am not making a legal argument. The use of 'right' implies moral force. Are you challenging that the state has the right to kill?
Do you really think I am arguing for arbitrary killing? Has anything I've posted suggested the state can simply remove any and all at its leisure? The point revolves around base notions of justice and civil mandate. This should be obvious. With capital punishment I have argued that if there are such cases where the guilty are considered beyond reprieve and thereby would not be allowed to return to society then death is the proper conclusion. The simple working example has been cases of murder where a base equity can be demonstrated. I think I have been consistent in arguing this point. You weren't arguing for arbitrary killing by the state, but you did make the case for it in your arguments with the notion that the state has the unquestionable right to kill
I have not argued imprisonment alone equals torture. I have argued that life in prison where there is no possible return is cruel and unusual punishment. I have also argued that in such cases death is more humane and proper.Were it life in solitary confinement, I might agree that it's torture- but lifetime solitary confinement fell out of popular practice long ago as far as I know. I argue that prisons should be harsher, but I don't see any benefit to driving prisoners insane in absolute solitude- nor do I see any benefit to justify killing them.
Does this mean those who served in the Continental Army shouldn't have fired their weapons and thereby 'forced death on others for (their) principles?' Better they simply sacrificed themselves?So we're back to this again? Killing on the battlefield is not equivalent to killing defenseless prisoners. I can't honestly believe you don't see a difference.
#Given recent confusion: no. I'm not justifying vigilantism here. Killing is a state authorized function.Based on that, we would have no disagreement. But I part ways when you claim that a state has an absolute right to kill and that it is moral for a state to do so regardless of the circumstances.
Papewaio
08-05-2005, 18:51
Pindar you dodged the question. Are you stating that all bar 3 democracies in the world are morally inferior because they do not use the death penalty?
You weren't arguing for arbitrary killing by the state, but you did make the case for it in your arguments with the notion that the state has the unquestionable right to kill
I have made no case for arbitrary killing.
The state does have a right to kill. The military is a simple example. The police would be another.
Were it life in solitary confinement, I might agree that it's torture- but lifetime solitary confinement fell out of popular practice long ago as far as I know. I argue that prisons should be harsher, but I don't see any benefit to driving prisoners insane in absolute solitude- nor do I see any benefit to justify killing them.
The benefit to capital punishment is it provides redress. This is the basis for punishment.
So we're back to this again? Killing on the battlefield is not equivalent to killing defenseless prisoners. I can't honestly believe you don't see a difference.
State killing is state killing. Whether this applies to an external threat or an internal one: it is the same.
Based on that, we would have no disagreement. But I part ways when you claim that a state has an absolute right to kill and that it is moral for a state to do so regardless of the circumstances.
I have never argued the state can kill regardless of circumstance.
Pindar you dodged the question. Are you stating that all bar 3 democracies in the world are morally inferior because they do not use the death penalty?
I didn't reply because I didn't think it was a serious question.
Of course! Any nation that rejects capital punishment is morally inferior. I Consider socialism and its attendant baggage as morally inferior. It is just one more example of the feminization of societies that comfortable in their cafes do not understand the reality of evil. Capital punishment has been the standard for jurisprudential thought since the rise of Civilization. The reason being, it is almost impossible to come up with a sound understanding of law and punishment without it. Capital punishment is directly tied to equity which is the basis for law.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Orwell.
I didn't reply because I didn't think it was a serious question.
Of course! Any nation that rejects capital punishment is morally inferior. I Consider socialism and its attendant baggage as morally inferior. It is just one more example of the feminization of societies that comfortable in their cafes do not understand the reality of evil.
It sounds as if you believe "women" have no right to influence the world. They have been ignored for many centuries and still are today in many cultures. Are you saying that women's influence should not be accepted because they are inferior. This is very similar thinking to "Islam" and some "Christian" and other religions, in the superiority of Men.
Man first, Women second. That is very arrogant thinking. Countless centuries of war can be traced in part to men's arrogance that they are superior.
Women should be respected fully, what they bring to the world. Unless you think they are only useful for 2 things: breeding an cleaning, like some men think.
Crazed Rabbit
08-05-2005, 21:39
:balloon2: *Ding Ding Ding!* :balloon2:
Congrats! You win the red herring award! Either that or you misunderstood him.
What he was talking about when he said 'feminization' related not to women, but to a pacifistic response of intellectual elites who have never experienced that which they preach about. They think they can remove evil from the world by ignoring it.
Crazed Rabbit
Kanamori
08-05-2005, 21:58
Yes, the right exists, but what are the criteria that must be met in order for the death penalty to be viable. I see a problem in the way it is carried out. There ought to be some standard so it is given out equally. Right now, it's whichever lawyer can give a more passionate speech to the jury. And no, before it's brought up, I don't support Judges giving it out, because I could see that as a very likely question or implication.
Edit: It can be put into the social contract that its citizen's are not to be put to death, but that isn't the case.
:balloon2: *Ding Ding Ding!* :balloon2:
Congrats! You win the red herring award! Either that or you misunderstood him.
What he was talking about when he said 'feminization' related not to women, but to a pacifistic response of intellectual elites who have never experienced that which they preach about. They think they can remove evil from the world by ignoring it.
Crazed Rabbit
Thank you for stating what should have been obvious. :bow:
Yes, the right exists, but what are the criteria that must be met in order for the death penalty to be viable. I see a problem in the way it is carried out. There ought to be some standard so it is given out equally. Right now, it's whichever lawyer can give a more passionate speech to the jury. And no, before it's brought up, I don't support Judges giving it out, because I could see that as a very likely question or implication.
Implementation and the base right are distinct. I have no problem with applying a high degree of rigor to the process so as to help eliminate error and instill fairness. I don't think that means abandoning the Adversarial Judicial System or trial by a group of one's peers however.
Kanamori
08-05-2005, 23:08
Agreed. What should those criteria be, though? I was plan side in a Death Penalty debate in school, so I would be interested in hearing the ideas of others.
I dont believe in Death sentence,Because at somepoint you will execute innocent people.
Pindar.I dont quite understand why you think death sentence is societys self defence.
Sorry I missed your post earlier.
All systems are prone to some error. Innocent people will and do die. Guilty people will and do get off free. The military kills its own in friendly fire. Innocents die as collateral damage. Each is unfortunate. Striving to correct error does not mean abandonment of sound policy or justice.
Capital punishment (CP) is a societal defense because murder is an attack on society. CP is a response to crime not its precursor.
sharrukin
08-05-2005, 23:31
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
Does that include the mistakes made by the legal system when they let some killer escape or get parole released to kill again? Or do those innocents not count?
Such incidents are regrettable. However any subsequent killings are the crimes of the released man not, as is the case in the death sentence, of the courts and by extension ourselves.
Deaths due to acts of omission on the part of the authorities are not the states responsibility?
"Such incidents are regrettable"
So the innocents who are murdered by state negligence are not your responsibility, but the death of an inmate not guilty of the crime is your responsibility?
The moral obligation that weighs heavily on you is the one regarding the imposition of the death penalty, not the one regarding the states obligation to protect its own citizens?
Far more innocents are killed by such negligence than could ever possibly be killed by direct state action.
Is it about protecting innocents, or not?
Or is it about protecting your conscience?
You seem to be assuming that the death penalty is wrong based on the idea that the state has no scope of moral action beyond that which is permitted to an individual. Any legitimate state has a duty to defend itself and its citizens. It also has the right to go to war, and that is not something we would grant to an individual. The state is not a person, and cannot conduct itself based on personal morality.
A moral stupor seems to have descended on us that says the death of a murderous thug is not of equal moral significance to that of an innocent, but is rather of greater moral significance than that of an innocent, simply because the state carried it out!
Question is, why put them in prison at all?
I mean according to your logic the state bears no responsibility for what private citizens do.
Put simply human depravity exists and the moral and social order requires a response to the offense.
I see that the state sanctioned killing arguments is still in full flow from our cold-hearted lawyer! I would still agrue that the state has no right to kill its own citizens. In fact I see that as a basic aspect of a free country. It is also why the recent Underground shooting disturbed me so (plus the aspect of extra-judicial killing). This is merest opinion however since I have no legal background.
You are willing to accept a person is wrongfully left to rot until they die in prison, but you are opposed to capital punishment. You are willing to accept that they will be sent to prison and sodomized or killed. You are not willing to accept the state sanctioned killing due to the fact that they by implication represent you?
For all those who weigh up the value of life and the cost of prison and decide that death is better than spending dollars I say shame on you. If you believe this then you forfeit the right to any moral high ground on any subject of life and death (for example, abortion). You would sell your own Grandmother for glue.
Well, in point of fact it was the anti-death penalty crowd that brings up the dollars and cents issue time after time. The claim being that the death penalty cost more than life without parole. It is disproven by the evidence. I agree that justice for money is not an acceptable tradeoff. They should hang regardless of the cost, because it is just and right that they should!
I have made no case for arbitrary killing.
The state does have a right to kill. The military is a simple example. The police would be another.
State killing is state killing. Whether this applies to an external threat or an internal one: it is the same.
I have never argued the state can kill regardless of circumstance.Do these statements seem inconsistent to anyone else?
State killing is state killing? Enemy soldiers, criminals, POWs, old people, babies? All equal and all good and moral so long as the state does it.
Posted by Pindar
I have made no case for arbitrary killing.
The state does have a right to kill. The military is a simple example. The police would be another.
State killing is state killing. Whether this applies to an external threat or an internal one: it is the same.
I have never argued the state can kill regardless of circumstance.
XiahouDo these statements seem inconsistent to anyone else?
Where is the inconsistency?
sharrukin
08-06-2005, 00:18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
I have made no case for arbitrary killing.
The state does have a right to kill. The military is a simple example. The police would be another.
State killing is state killing. Whether this applies to an external threat or an internal one: it is the same.
I have never argued the state can kill regardless of circumstance.
Do these statements seem inconsistent to anyone else?
State killing is state killing? Enemy soldiers, criminals, POWs, old people, babies? All equal and all good and moral so long as the state does it.
"I have never argued the state can kill regardless of circumstance."
No inconsistency that I can see!
The state has the right to kill, as do individuals based on the circumstances.
Some killing is not morally wrong, and some killing is.
Looking at Killing individuals what is the lowest level you will think it is right to kill someone for their crime
Genocidal Leader (Hundreds, thousands, millions)
Mass-Murderer (Dozens, hundreds, thousands i.e. terrorist)
Serial Killer (Multiple; One/two at a time)
Child-Rapist Murderer
Rapist Murderer
Assassin (Specific Target - Unknown - for money)
Murderer (Specific Target - Known - revenge)
Assault/Robber/Burglar Murder (In the act of committing a crime)
Crime of Passion (Lovers Triangle, etc.)
Metally impaired Murderer
Drunk Driver / Speeding Driver killing
Accidental killing (Negligent)
Adulterer (no one dead)
Drug Courier (no one dead)
While against the "Death Penalty" for reasons outlined above. If it was to be enforced, I would probably support "Rapist Murderers" and worse being executed.
sharrukin
08-06-2005, 03:28
Looking at Killing individuals what is the lowest level you will think it is right to kill someone for their crime
YES
Genocidal Leader (Hundreds, thousands, millions)
Mass-Murderer (Dozens, hundreds, thousands i.e. terrorist)
Serial Killer (Multiple; One/two at a time)
Child-Rapist Murderer
Rapist Murderer
Assassin (Specific Target - Unknown - for money)
Revenge for what? (probably a YES)
Murderer (Specific Target - Known - revenge)
Dependent on the exact circumstances.
Assault/Robber/Burglar Murder (In the act of committing a crime)
Crime of Passion (Lovers Triangle, etc.)
NO
Metally impaired Murderer
Drunk Driver / Speeding Driver killing
Accidental killing (Negligent)
Adulterer (no one dead)
Drug Courier (no one dead)
Voigtkampf
08-06-2005, 06:48
Do these statements seem inconsistent to anyone else?
Not in the least.
Don't let yourself be blinded by political correctness.
Not in the least.
Don't let yourself be blinded by political correctness.Political correctness has nothing to do with it. You can't reasonably say that the state can't arbitrarily kill people, then in the same breath claim that the state has a right to kill people and it makes no difference what the reason- state killing is state killing no matter what.
It's an absurd position- if the state has a 'right to kill', then it has the right to kill anyone. If it has limitations then its not a right- nor does it have a damn thing to do with the death penalty debate. As I've said- I'm well aware that capital punishment is legal, I think it's useless and uneccessary killing. It serves no purpose other than revenge- unless you subscribe to the 'eye for an eye' notion where some karmic imbalance is created and the world spins off its axis unless a murdered is killed- life for a life.
sharrukin
08-06-2005, 09:24
Political correctness has nothing to do with it. You can't reasonably say that the state can't arbitrarily kill people, then in the same breath claim that the state has a right to kill people and it makes no difference what the reason- state killing is state killing no matter what.
It's an absurd position- if the state has a 'right to kill', then it has the right to kill anyone. If it has limitations then its not a right- nor does it have a damn thing to do with the death penalty debate. As I've said- I'm well aware that capital punishment is legal, I think it's useless and uneccessary killing. It serves no purpose other than revenge- unless you subscribe to the 'eye for an eye' notion where some karmic imbalance is created and the world spins off its axis unless a murdered is killed- life for a life.
Well, first off, every right has limits. There is no such thing as an unlimited right.
The right of free speech is limited. No yelling fire in a crowded theatre.
The right to own property is limited. Eminent domain.
The right to vote is limited. No 6 year olds, or inmates allowed.
The right to the pursuit of happiness. You have to catch it first, it doesn't get handed to you.
The right to freedom of association. Terrorists not included.
The right to life. Capital punishment, the draft, robbing a bank.
There are limits on all of them.
Out of interest.
If justice does not incorporate any elements of vengeance, then what is it to you?
I assume Ted Bundy who killed close to 40 women is not going to get community service or a $500 fine in your system of justice, but why not?
If vengeance isn't at least a part of it and Brazil said they would take him as a talk show host, why not accept exile for him?
I ask because you don't seem to think justice and vengeance are related.
Out of interest.
If justice does not incorporate any elements of vengeance, then what is it to you?
I assume Ted Bundy who killed close to 40 women is not going to get community service or a $500 fine in your system of justice, but why not?
If vengeance isn't at least a part of it and Brazil said they would take him as a talk show host, why not accept exile for him?
I ask because you don't seem to think justice and vengeance are related.
It's pretty simple really- you imprison people to keep them from endangering the general population. Our government shouldn't be in the revenge business. Some criminals, however, commit such heinous crimes that we cannot afford to risk to have them loosed on society again- thus life sentencing. Obviously, the reason for non-life offenders being imprisoned is also a deterrant type of punishment.
Sending Bundy to Brazil would be unconscionable on our part, as we already know him to be a violent, murderous psychopath and all around scumbag.
sharrukin
08-06-2005, 21:17
It's pretty simple really- you imprison people to keep them from endangering the general population. Our government shouldn't be in the revenge business. Some criminals, however, commit such heinous crimes that we cannot afford to risk to have them loosed on society again- thus life sentencing. Obviously, the reason for non-life offenders being imprisoned is also a deterrant type of punishment.
Sending Bundy to Brazil would be unconscionable on our part, as we already know him to be a violent, murderous psychopath and all around scumbag.
The aim being to prevent or suppress crimes to acceptable levels. The purpose is increased safety for the community at large but not justice.
Should a man such as Adolf Eichmann or Heinrich Himmler be subject to any punishment at all? They will not ever be in a position to repeat what they have done to bring themselves to our attention. So if rehabilitation and deterrance is our sole intent then the job has been done. It would be retribution alone that would guide any action against them. If the death penalty does not deter, and if they are unlikely to repeat their crimes, then why even bother to put them in prison at all? Clearly Adolf Eichmann was less of a threat to society in the utilitarian sense than that posed by a 16 year old car thief. He was living peacefully in South America being a model citizen. Why hunt him down?
"When we see one man oppressed or injured by another, the sympathy which we feel with the distress of the sufferer seems to serve only to animate our fellow-feeling with his resentment against the offender. We are rejoiced to see him attack his adversary in his turn, and are eager and ready to assist him whenever he exerts himself for defence, or even for vengeance within a certain degree." Adam Smith
This is vengeance and retribution and it is why we despise the Nazi camp guard and lend our sympathy to the inmate of such places. Anger is the sentiment aroused by the sight of injustice, and is therefore intimately connected with justice. Should we not exact retribution from those who wrong us? Should we not act as defenders for those who cannot defend themselves?
Justice makes a virtue of controlled vengeance.
Steppe Merc
08-06-2005, 22:53
How does the state have the right to kill anyone? It's pathetic hypocracy at the highest to say that people can't kill each other in veganace or duels of honor or something, while the state can. What makes the state so special? Human life is human life, and no one should have the right to end another's that is not derectly threatining them.
Is it that much difference to give them life sentence? They will never be able to hurt anyone again anyway, and there is the possibility of reversing a desicion if someone is found to be innocent. Laws will have to change to accomadate this, such as making life really life, not 25 years, as well as lessening punishments for stupid crimes to make up for the cost of imporssining more criminals, but it would be far better for everyone.
sharrukin
08-06-2005, 23:25
How does the state have the right to kill anyone? It's pathetic hypocracy at the highest to say that people can't kill each other in veganace or duels of honor or something, while the state can. What makes the state so special? Human life is human life, and no one should have the right to end another's that is not derectly threatining them.
Is it that much difference to give them life sentence? They will never be able to hurt anyone again anyway, and there is the possibility of reversing a desicion if someone is found to be innocent. Laws will have to change to accomadate this, such as making life really life, not 25 years, as well as lessening punishments for stupid crimes to make up for the cost of imporssining more criminals, but it would be far better for everyone.
So if Adolf Hitler had escaped to South America on a submarine, we would be wrong to send someone to finish him off?
Alright, so you admit that they are henous individuals not fit to come back into society. Why make society pay extravegant sums to keep them alive then? Is that not adding insult to injury?
Yes, Execution can be expensive, but you are paying for the elimination of a criminal, not the sustainment of one.Both options are currently very expensive. To make executions cheaper, you would need to cut down on the amount of appeals- almost invariably leading to more innocents being wrongfully executed. Prisons could easily be made cheaper, by making them less like country clubs and more like proper prisons.
"When we see one man oppressed or injured by another, the sympathy which we feel with the distress of the sufferer seems to serve only to animate our fellow-feeling with his resentment against the offender. We are rejoiced to see him attack his adversary in his turn, and are eager and ready to assist him whenever he exerts himself for defence, or even for vengeance within a certain degree." -Adam Smith
This is vengeance and retribution and it is why we despise the Nazi camp guard and lend our sympathy to the inmate of such places. Anger is the sentiment aroused by the sight of injustice, and is therefore intimately connected with justice. Should we not exact retribution from those who wrong us? Should we not act as defenders for those who cannot defend themselves?
Justice makes a virtue of controlled vengeance.
Well said.
You can't reasonably say that the state can't arbitrarily kill people, then in the same breath claim that the state has a right to kill people and it makes no difference what the reason- state killing is state killing no matter what.
It's an absurd position- if the state has a 'right to kill', then it has the right to kill anyone. If it has limitations then its not a right- nor does it have a damn thing to do with the death penalty debate.
Xiahou my good man, I think your passion is getting the better of you. My position is not inconsistent or logically strained in any way. I cannot say the same about the above view. It doesn't follow that a right to kill is therefore justification to kill carte blanche. In logic this fallacy is called a hasty induction or "secundum quid" In practical terms this means one does not determine a general conclusion by a particular case. The justification to kill is constrained to specific situations. For example: the military has the right to kill, but this does not mean kill anyone at anytime anywhere. Rather, the military is bound by civilian political oversight that determines the scope and parameters of military action i.e fight in Iraq, but not in Jordon. There is also an established military code of conduct that has the weight of law. This is one of the reasons Courts Marshal can occur for wrongful killing even in a war scenario. The same is the case when the state exercise its right to kill under the Criminal Code. Those executed must have met certain criteria. No one is killed for a traffic ticket or listening to Country Music (though this should be reconsidered) for example.
Now it seems you are confused by or taking issue with two basic points: state killing and rights language. Let me explain these a little. I'll start with the latter first. A "right" refers to a legal mandate, but it also has a moral element. It implies a just cause of action. I know your challenge is focused on the moral position, but we cannot totally divorce it from the legal sphere because of the political nature of the concept. Even so, when a rights claim X is made, it implies a duty by the state to insure that X is provided. An example would be the right to protection. This means the state is obligated to provide that protection. Nationally this would be the military. Domestically this would be the police. The performance of this charge also implies a moral basis. The state by providing protection is serving the good.
Now the state's right to kill (I'm now moving to the first point) also contains a moral charge. This charge may fall under the more general right to protection. In fact, it would be common to consider the one a natural consequent of the other. The right to be protected entails the states' right to kill in the furtherance of that protection. Were it not the case the nation could lose its sovereignty or heinous crime could go unchecked. This is called right piggy-backing. where one right operates in tandem with another. The right to kill does not necessarily have to depend on another duty however. The moral aspect of state killing operates independently. State killing is necessarily tied to justice. Justice at its core is an equity relation: a basic quid pro quo where what is owed must be accounted for. If this is not provided then justice is not considered served. For example: if someone steals a thing they have violated an aspect of the equity relation. If the thief were found out and the authorities decided to punish in some fashion but didn't require he give up what was taken: there remains an inequity with the object itself, an injustice. Now murder represents the complete elimination of all possibilities for the murdered. In Jewish thought their is a maxim: "He who saves a life, saves a nation" meaning the life preserved has unqualifiable potential. The taking of life for private gain in a reverse of the maxim "destroys a nation" as all potential is lost. How is equity brought to this unbalance? By the sacrifice of the one who took all that the murdered had. Life in prison, regardless of its inhumane aspect, cannot meet or fill the void created by the guilty. Infinite loss must be met with infinite sacrifice. The state under whose auspices justice is decided is uniquely placed to administer this verdict.
Voigtkampf
08-07-2005, 14:08
Political correctness has nothing to do with it. You can't reasonably say that the state can't arbitrarily kill people, then in the same breath claim that the state has a right to kill people and it makes no difference what the reason- state killing is state killing no matter what.
Your logic is flawed. I have both legal and moral right to kill someone in defense who is trying to murder me for the content of my wallet. That doesn’t mean I have the right to kill anyone arbitrarily. Same applies to the state.
It's an absurd position- if the state has a 'right to kill', then it has the right to kill anyone.
Actually, you own position is absurd. The state derives its right to kill as punishment for the criminals or in war from many legal, ethical and moral sources, the greatest of them being the society itself that needs to be protected from its foes, internal and external. Its “right” to arbitrarily kill without any constrain would be derived solely from its power to do so, unlike the prior example. There is no logical conclusion that “right to kill” equals “right to kill arbitrarily”. Please refer back to my first example above.
If it has limitations then its not a right- nor does it have a damn thing to do with the death penalty debate.
That is, with all due respect, plain wrong. There is no such thing as an “unlimited” right. All of our rights have boundaries. One of the most famous law sayings about rights goes “My rights end where the nose of another person begins.” I have right to protect my property. I don’t have a right to shoot someone down who just might happen to try and steal/damage my property. I believe other similar examples have been named, no need to elaborate on this anymore.
As I've said- I'm well aware that capital punishment is legal, I think it's useless and uneccessary killing.
Then again, your logic has made place to emotions.
It serves no purpose other than revenge- unless you subscribe to the 'eye for an eye' notion where some karmic imbalance is created and the world spins off its axis unless a murdered is killed- life for a life.
Again, not true.
Capital punishment, like many other forms of punishments, have several functions.
1. Removes the ability of the perpetrator to repeat his crime. In case of death penalty, forever.
2. Retribution/compensation. Most important issue. Returns the faith in law, justice, equity, ethics and moral. Restores the balance of the society as much as possible. Despite what you think, it is a most important issue, perhaps the most important.
3. Intimidation effect. Over this one, one could argue for days, but it shouldn’t be a day’s work to figure out most of the people obey law only out of the fear of punishment. When I go speeding down the highway and see cops, I don’t slow down because I feel the ethical or moral repercussions; I slow down because I am afraid of the consequences in the shape of a large money fee that I will have to pay if I get caught. Same principle, larger stakes.
There are more, but these are nicely rounded up and are in every fundamental law book there is.
Steppe Merc
08-07-2005, 16:22
So if Adolf Hitler had escaped to South America on a submarine, we would be wrong to send someone to finish him off?
Assassination is different from execution.
sharrukin
08-07-2005, 19:37
Quote:
So if Adolf Hitler had escaped to South America on a submarine, we would be wrong to send someone to finish him off?
Assassination is different from execution.
Yes, they are different but in this case the principal remains the same.
In this particular case it is state sanctioned execution in the furtherance of justice.
Would it be morally wrong to execute Adolf Hitler?
How does the state have the right to kill anyone? It's pathetic hypocracy at the highest to say that people can't kill each other in veganace or duels of honor or something, while the state can. What makes the state so special?
Because thats the deal the state makes when it takes away the right of blood feud.
I do not have the right of private vengeance, because the state promises to protect and defend me and my family, and to see that justice is carried out for any wrong done to them.
Human life is human life, and no one should have the right to end another's that is not derectly threatining them.
So it would have been morally wrong for us to intervene in Rwanda to save those people being massacred?
It would be morally wrong for us to intervene to save a planload of hijacked Brazilians being held hostage in Mexico by terrorists? Not our problem, and we are not being directly threatened.
It would also be morally wrong for you to walk across the street and save your neighbours life?
Don't you believe we have a moral duty to act in the defence of others?
Is it that much difference to give them life sentence? They will never be able to hurt anyone again anyway, and there is the possibility of reversing a desicion if someone is found to be innocent. Laws will have to change to accomadate this, such as making life really life, not 25 years, as well as lessening punishments for stupid crimes to make up for the cost of imporssining more criminals, but it would be far better for everyone.
Yes, there is a difference!
The history of prison systems suggests there will be many escapes and mistakes made that result in innocent people being killed. Do you seriously believe that a 100 people should die by the hand of these men, when we could prevent those deaths. We might make a mistake and execute an innocent man so we will let a 100 innocents die instead? What the hell kind of logic is that? Who are we protecting here? Our own sensibilities that shrink away at the idea of the calm and deliberate taking of a human life? That is pure selfishness.
It has been said that it is "Better a hundred guilty men go free than an innocent man hang." Better for who? For the victims of those hundred guilty who are let loose? We are talking about the death penalty so these are not people who threw a rock through someones window. Will the victims of those guilty thank you for your delicacy? Will justice be held in greater respect as the murderers and rapists take victim after victim?
How would this be better for everyone?
Steppe Merc
08-07-2005, 19:54
Yes, they are different but in this case the principal remains the same.
In this particular case it is state sanctioned execution in the furtherance of justice.
Would it be morally wrong to execute Adolf Hitler?
If he was arrested, he should have been imprisoned until he dies under very high security.
So it would have been morally wrong for us to intervene in Rwanda to save those people being massacred?
It would be morally wrong for us to intervene to save a planload of hijacked Brazilians being held hostage in Mexico by terrorists? Not our problem, and we are not being directly threatened.
It would also be morally wrong for you to walk across the street and save your neighbours life?
Don't you believe we have a moral duty to act in the defence of others?
Yes. But execution of criminals is not defence, it's vengance. Of course there is an obligation to help the people of Rwanada, captives or your neighbor. It is totally different from executing someone who is a captive than saving people's lives from dangerous people. When someone is a captive, they no longer present a threat.
Yes, there is a difference!
The history of prison systems suggests there will be many escapes and mistakes made that result in innocent people being killed. Do you seriously believe that a 100 people should die by the hand of these men, when we could prevent those deaths. We might make a mistake and execute an innocent man so we will let a 100 innocents die instead? What the hell kind of logic is that? Who are we protecting here? Our own sensibilities that shrink away at the idea of the calm and deliberate taking of a human life? That is pure selfishness.
It has been said that it is "Better a hundred guilty men go free than an innocent man hang." Better for who? For the victims of those hundred guilty who are let loose? We are talking about the death penalty so these are not people who threw a rock through someones window. Will the victims of those guilty thank you for your delicacy? Will justice be held in greater respect as the murderers and rapists take victim after victim?
How would this be better for everyone?
A criminal escaping is preventable. If a criminal escapes, then it is the fault of the failure of the prison. However, the actions of the criminal is his fault.
On the other hand, when the government executes an evil person, that is murder, and is directly the fault of the government, and is far more preventable than the escape of a criminal,
In addition, a criminal can escape while awaiting to be executed, or if they do not have the death sentence, or even while awaiting trial. Following your logic, is it not easier to kill all people who would end up in jail, because they might escape and might end up harming others?
sharrukin
08-07-2005, 22:50
If he was arrested, he should have been imprisoned until he dies under very high security.
That simply isn't justice!
Yes. But execution of criminals is not defence, it's vengance. Of course there is an obligation to help the people of Rwanada, captives or your neighbor. It is totally different from executing someone who is a captive than saving people's lives from dangerous people. When someone is a captive, they no longer present a threat.
You are partly right because Retribution is part and parcel of justice. Not vengeance, but retribution.
The evidence as to how much of a threat they pose, suggests otherwise.
“Under the Massachusetts concept of repair rather than revenge, no person is believed beyond redemption, not even a rapist or a killer.” That’s why, despite “the fact that 85 percent of the DOC inmate population has a present or past violent criminal history,” 28 percent of that population had participated in the furlough program as of January 1987. Since the program’s inception in 1972, 121,713 furloughs had been granted to 10,835 Massachusetts inmates; 5,554 of those unescorted leaves were taken by first-degree murderers, supposedly serving “life without parole” sentences.
Massachusetts officials proclaimed a furlough “escape rate” of only 0.5 percent.
This is calculated by dividing the 428 escapees by the 121,713 furloughs granted from 1972 through 1987. However, those furloughs were granted repeatedly to only 10,835 inmates. Dividing 428 by that number reveals an actual escape rate of one out of every 23 participants!
Peter J. Limone sentenced to “life without parole” for a contract murder was one of those, and he got 160 furloughs and used them to manage a local loan-shark operation.
Kenneth McDuff got 'life without parole'
http://www.geocities.com/verbal_plainfield/i-p/mcduff.html
Kenneth D. Williams got 'life without parole' for the murder of a university cheerleader.
He escaped on Oct. 3, 1999, while serving that sentence at the Cummins Unit of the state prison system in Lincoln County, Ark. After 57-year-old farmer Cecil Boren was slain at his home near the prison, Williams fled to Missouri in Boren's truck. He was captured near Urbana after an accident that killed Culligan delivery driver Michael Greenwood, 24, of Springfield, Mo. Williams was convicted for Boren's slaying and sentenced to death. If McDuff had been executed as scheduled, he said, "no telling how many lives would have been saved.'' At least nine, probably more, Texas authorities suspect.
Dawud Mu’Min got 48 years for the 1973 murder of a cab driver.
He escaped a road work gang and stabbed to death a storekeeper named Gadys Nopwasky in a 1988 robbery and got $4.00.
William D. Davis and Douglas E. Gray to escape a Stringtown, Okla. prison on March 16. Both were serving life sentences for homicide. Davis stabbed a man 80 times with a knife during a 1974 robbery while Gray fatally beat and shot a teacher in 1988.
Michael Rodriguez, sentenced to life for murder, joined six lesser criminals in overpowering prison employees in Connolly, Tex. last December 13 before leaving in a maintenance truck. Police say the "Malevolent Seven" robbed an Oshman's sporting goods store on Christmas Eve, then shot police officer Aubrey Hawkins 11 times and drove over his corpse.
After escaping a Florida prison in 1991, John Fred Woolard shot and killed a park ranger. Last May 28, Woolard escaped again, this time from a Mississippi prison, accompanied by armed robber Roy Randall Harper. The two convicts allegedly fired at a sheriff's deputy who stopped them for speeding, then embarked on a high-speed chase in a stolen van last June 14. Woolard surrendered three days later, after a final getaway bid in yet another carjacked van.
James Robert Thomas who escaped the Oklahoma County Jail in 1994, was doing life for the 1993 rape and killing of Jessie Roberts, his 81-year-old neighbor who paid the then 17-year-old to mow her lawn.
Tracy Lynn Harris received life without parole on the felony murder charge and a 20-year sentence on the rape charge.
Madelyn Ruth Bomar, is the 81-year-old woman whom Harris was convicted of murdering and raping in 1998,
http://www.azcorrections.gov/News/2004/murderer_escapes.html
Steve Murphy, O.C. Borden, and Gary Scott. These three murderers, all lifers, escaped a high-security prison in St. Clair Springs, Ala. on January 30. Along with three fellow inmates, they lifted the fence with a broom handle and slithered to freedom. Murphy once escaped this facility in the 1980.
The number of murderers who escaped the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (ODOC) from January 1, 1990, to December 31, 1995, was 35 (all males). That's one state, and not a big one.
It is claimed that 23 (12 of whom actually have substantial evidence of guilt) innocents have been mistakenly executed this century and it is said that 77 persons have been released from death row because they were not guilty of the crime for which they had been condemned to death. Some of these are in fact known to be guilty and in at least 29 cases it is unknown as to whether they are or are not.
Bedau and Radelet, the authors of that study, conceded - in 1988 - that neither they nor any previous researchers have proved that any of those executed was innocent: "We agree with our critics that we have not proved these executed defendants to be innocent; we never claimed that we had." (41, 1 Stanford Law Review, 11/1988).
"Of the roughly 52,000 state prison inmates serving time for murder in 1984, an estimated 810 had previously been convicted of murder and had killed 821 persons following their previous murder convictions. Executing each of these inmates would have saved 821 lives."
"The U.S. Department of Justice estimates that convicted criminals free on parole and probation . . . commit ‘at least’ 84,800 violent crimes every year, including 13,200 murders, 12,900 rapes, and 49,500 robberies." American Guardian, May 1997, pg. 26. Incredibly, this slaughter does not include violent crimes committed by repeat offenders who are released and who are not on "supervision".
The expected punishment for murder was only 1.5 years in 1985 and rose to only 2.7 years in 1995! (THE REYNOLD’S REPORT, "Crime and Punishment in the U.S.", National Center for Policy Analysis, 1997).
"When someone is a captive, they no longer present a threat."
A criminal escaping is preventable. If a criminal escapes, then it is the fault of the failure of the prison. However, the actions of the criminal is his fault.
The courts exist for the sole purpose of serving the people and for no other reason.
Its not your fault! Not your problem?
I mean, if the actions of criminals are not the problem of the government then why bother with a criminal justice system at all?
Deaths due to acts of omission on the part of the authorities are not the states responsibility? So the government doing nothing while a business pours toxic waste into the water supply it isn't the governments problem? They bear no responsibility for a failure to protect?
So the state has no duty to protect its own citizens at all? The entire justice system is based on the idea that the state has a positive duty to prevent its citizens and that private acts of vengeance are not allowed and that the state shall administer justice. This is an abdication of such responsibility.
It is the duty of the State to protect fundamental rights of the citizens as well as the right to property. If they fail in this then we should replace them with a judiciary that will. The judicial system is being derelict in its duty to protect the public from such people.
On the other hand, when the government executes an evil person, that is murder, and is directly the fault of the government, and is far more preventable than the escape of a criminal,
In addition, a criminal can escape while awaiting to be executed, or if they do not have the death sentence, or even while awaiting trial.
So a lawful execution and murder are the same thing?
What about kidnapping and imprisonment? Same thing? No? Well why not?
So rape and sex are the same thing? Right?
Two acts which have the same ending are NOT morally the same.
Your logic only works if you believe that the life of a criminal is of equal value to someone who isn't! They are not of equal value. The life of a rapist is NOT of equal value to the woman he is raping!
By executing murderers you prevent them from murdering again. Its that simple. The examples above regarding those who have escaped to murder again demonstrate that keeping them alive guarantees nothing. Even if the mythical LWOP (life without parole) actually existed, which it does not.
If the death penalty is a deterrent and we execute, we are saving many more lives. If the death penalty IS NOT a deterrent and we execute we are fewer saving innocent lives well. If we fail to execute we are sacrificing innocent lives.
Following your logic, is it not easier to kill all people who would end up in jail, because they might escape and might end up harming others?
No, because that would not be justice! Someone who steals should be given justice, and sentence of death would not be just, given the offence. That they should be held accountable for what they do? Yes! The ones we are discussing, are not those who might do something in the future, but rather those who have already been tried and convicted of what they have done in the past. The question is, should we give them another chance to rape and murder? I fail to see any reason that we should!
Xiahou my good man, I think your passion is getting the better of you. My position is not inconsistent or logically strained in any way. I cannot say the same about the above view. It doesn't follow that a right to kill is therefore justification to kill carte blanche. In logic this fallacy is called a hasty induction or "secundum quid" In practical terms this means one does not determine a general conclusion by a particular case. The justification to kill is constrained to specific situations. For example: the military has the right to kill, but this does not mean kill anyone at anytime anywhere. Rather, the military is bound by civilian political oversight that determines the scope and parameters of military action i.e fight in Iraq, but not in Jordon. There is also an established military code of conduct that has the weight of law. This is one of the reasons Courts Marshal can occur for wrongful killing even in a war scenario. The same is the case when the state exercise its right to kill under the Criminal Code. Those executed must have met certain criteria. No one is killed for a traffic ticket or listening to Country Music (though this should be reconsidered) for example.So what are you trying to prove with all of this? Like I said, it's irrelevant to the debate. The state can kill based on rules it creates- I thought we were all in agreement on that. The state says abortion if fine, it also says the the death penalty is fine- we're under no obligation to agree with either just because the state can perform both. People can ever disagree with war, but I find that argument flawed on self-defense grounds. In capital punishment, there is no threat and there is no tangible benefit.
In the same fashion that prisons could be made cheaper by cutting back cable, Executions could be made cheaper by using some rope and a scaffold. Right now we use expensive chemicals, or elaborate little gas rooms, or an electric chair. Silly, really.You're totally ignoring what I said. The actual methods of death are insignificant in terms of costs.
Capital punishment, like many other forms of punishments, have several functions.
1. Removes the ability of the perpetrator to repeat his crime. In case of death penalty, forever.
2. Retribution/compensation. Most important issue. Returns the faith in law, justice, equity, ethics and moral. Restores the balance of the society as much as possible. Despite what you think, it is a most important issue, perhaps the most important.
3. Intimidation effect. Over this one, one could argue for days, but it shouldn’t be a day’s work to figure out most of the people obey law only out of the fear of punishment. When I go speeding down the highway and see cops, I don’t slow down because I feel the ethical or moral repercussions; I slow down because I am afraid of the consequences in the shape of a large money fee that I will have to pay if I get caught. Same principle, larger stakes.
And yet, they don't have to kill you for speeding for it to have a deterrent effect. Criteria 1 and 3 are both fullfilled by life imprisonment, in fact, according to Pindar, life imprisonment is torture and worse than death- so it's deterrent effect should be greater on those grounds. I think 2 must be where everyone isn't seeing eye to(for?) eye. Compensation, where possible, is well and fine. Someone steals your tv, the police catch him, you should be compensated for it. However, there is no compensation for having a loved one murdered. The death of the murderer does not bring anyone back- all if does is provide for vengeance. My position is consistent in that killing people who are not a threat, is best avoided.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
Does that include the mistakes made by the legal system when they let some killer escape or get parole released to kill again? Or do those innocents not count?
Deaths due to acts of omission on the part of the authorities are not the states responsibility?
"Such incidents are regrettable"
So the innocents who are murdered by state negligence are not your responsibility, but the death of an inmate not guilty of the crime is your responsibility?
The moral obligation that weighs heavily on you is the one regarding the imposition of the death penalty, not the one regarding the states obligation to protect its own citizens?
Far more innocents are killed by such negligence than could ever possibly be killed by direct state action.
Is it about protecting innocents, or not?
Or is it about protecting your conscience?
You seem to be assuming that the death penalty is wrong based on the idea that the state has no scope of moral action beyond that which is permitted to an individual. Any legitimate state has a duty to defend itself and its citizens. It also has the right to go to war, and that is not something we would grant to an individual. The state is not a person, and cannot conduct itself based on personal morality.
A moral stupor seems to have descended on us that says the death of a murderous thug is not of equal moral significance to that of an innocent, but is rather of greater moral significance than that of an innocent, simply because the state carried it out!
Question is, why put them in prison at all?
I mean according to your logic the state bears no responsibility for what private citizens do.
Put simply human depravity exists and the moral and social order requires a response to the offense.
You are willing to accept a person is wrongfully left to rot until they die in prison, but you are opposed to capital punishment. You are willing to accept that they will be sent to prison and sodomized or killed. You are not willing to accept the state sanctioned killing due to the fact that they by implication represent you?
Well, in point of fact it was the anti-death penalty crowd that brings up the dollars and cents issue time after time. The claim being that the death penalty cost more than life without parole. It is disproven by the evidence. I agree that justice for money is not an acceptable tradeoff. They should hang regardless of the cost, because it is just and right that they should!
In such a situation the State would be no more to blame than the killer's grandmother. The killer did the deed, not the State. Besides which you over look the fact that either the man is tried and freed (ie not guilty according to law) or is tried and banged up (not free to kill anyway). If parole and early release are concerns then address those issues before killing people off.
People are rarely "left to rot" in prison these days, though I appreciate that such colourful terms are just your way. Anything that happens to them in prison is, however, the state's responsiblility since killings in jail may indicate poorly run institutions (though with privatised jails I wonder who actually has this responsibility).
Again if you choose dollars over lives then you have, IMO, a very skewed out-look on life.
In belated response to Pindar: The state has no right to kill its own citizens. This is why the police ask questions and then shoot if absolutely necessary, and why there is an enquiry over every shooting. It does have the ability, however. The comparison to the military is cunning but not valid when it comes to internal affairs. The first government here to turn the army on the people will have destroyed my country utterly.
Would I have executed Hitler? No. That would have made him a martyr, whereas suicide made him appear as he was, weak and frightened.
So what are you trying to prove with all of this? Like I said, it's irrelevant to the debate.
The point was that rights claims are tied to justice. If the state has a right to kill: it ipso facto has a justification. This applies internationally and domestically. It is not simply a question of deciding a rule. Rights claims run deeper than that.
People can ever disagree with war, but I find that argument flawed on self-defense grounds. In capital punishment, there is no threat and there is no tangible benefit.
If you consider war only justified in self defense (as a response to attack) then you must reject the American Revolution which was an offensive act.
Further murder is an attack and a threat to society by the act alone. The tangible benefit of capital punishment is serving justice. A just society is a good thing.
If you consider war only justified in self defense (as a response to attack) then you must reject the American Revolution which was an offensive act.I think that's something of an over-simplification(secundum quid?). The fight for independence had many causes, including the deprivation of rights to property and self-determination of the Americans by the crown. You know, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and so on. ~;)
Further murder is an attack and a threat to society by the act alone. The tangible benefit of capital punishment is serving justice. A just society is a good thing.Yes, murder is a threat to society. It should be prevented altogether and discouraged whenever possible and reasonable steps should also be taken to make sure perpetrators can't re-offend. I don't see where killing is a necessary part of this.
The only argument I see still standing is killing for vengeance. People are entitled to their opinions, but I, in principle at least, can't agree with killing someone out of revenge.
sharrukin
08-08-2005, 01:39
In such a situation the State would be no more to blame than the killer's grandmother. The killer did the deed, not the State.
If the state has no duty regarding the safety of its citizens then why arrest anyone?
Besides which you over look the fact that either the man is tried and freed (ie not guilty according to law) or is tried and banged up (not free to kill anyway).
By "banged up" I assume you mean 'in prison'?
These guys are "banged up".
BTW, over here "escaped" means they were serving a prison term (banged up) and managed to get out.
Kenneth D. Williams got 'life without parole' for the murder of a university cheerleader.
He escaped on Oct. 3, 1999, while serving that sentence at the Cummins Unit of the state prison system in Lincoln County, Ark. After 57-year-old farmer Cecil Boren was slain at his home near the prison, Williams fled to Missouri in Boren's truck. He was captured near Urbana after an accident that killed Culligan delivery driver Michael Greenwood, 24, of Springfield, Mo. Williams was convicted for Boren's slaying and sentenced to death. If McDuff had been executed as scheduled, he said, "no telling how many lives would have been saved.'' At least nine, probably more, Texas authorities suspect.
Dawud Mu’Min got 48 years for the 1973 murder of a cab driver.
He escaped a road work gang and stabbed to death a storekeeper named Gadys Nopwasky in a 1988 robbery and got $4.00.
William D. Davis and Douglas E. Gray to escape a Stringtown, Okla. prison on March 16. Both were serving life sentences for homicide. Davis stabbed a man 80 times with a knife during a 1974 robbery while Gray fatally beat and shot a teacher in 1988.
Michael Rodriguez, sentenced to life for murder, joined six lesser criminals in overpowering prison employees in Connolly, Tex. last December 13 before leaving in a maintenance truck. Police say the "Malevolent Seven" robbed an Oshman's sporting goods store on Christmas Eve, then shot police officer Aubrey Hawkins 11 times and drove over his corpse.
After escaping a Florida prison in 1991, John Fred Woolard shot and killed a park ranger. Last May 28, Woolard escaped again, this time from a Mississippi prison, accompanied by armed robber Roy Randall Harper. The two convicts allegedly fired at a sheriff's deputy who stopped them for speeding, then embarked on a high-speed chase in a stolen van last June 14. Woolard surrendered three days later, after a final getaway bid in yet another carjacked van.
James Robert Thomas who escaped the Oklahoma County Jail in 1994, was doing life for the 1993 rape and killing of Jessie Roberts, his 81-year-old neighbor who paid the then 17-year-old to mow her lawn.
Tracy Lynn Harris received life without parole on the felony murder charge and a 20-year sentence on the rape charge.
Madelyn Ruth Bomar, is the 81-year-old woman whom Harris was convicted of murdering and raping in 1998,
http://www.azcorrections.gov/News/2...er_escapes.html
Steve Murphy, O.C. Borden, and Gary Scott. These three murderers, all lifers, escaped a high-security prison in St. Clair Springs, Ala. on January 30. Along with three fellow inmates, they lifted the fence with a broom handle and slithered to freedom. Murphy once escaped this facility in the 1980.
The number of murderers who escaped the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (ODOC) from January 1, 1990, to December 31, 1995, was 35 (all males). That's one state, and not a big one.
Again if you choose dollars over lives then you have, IMO, a very skewed out-look on life.
I wouldn't accept any amount of money to spare their lives because they deserve to die for what they have done. I begrudge them every penny spent on their miserable worthless lives. That is the only dollars and cents issue I have. Their lives IMO have a negative value.
The only argument I see still standing is killing for vengeance. People are entitled to their opinions, but I, in principle at least, can't agree with killing someone out of revenge.
Well sentencing people to prison once they are convicted of a crime - is not because of any other principle but retribution (SP) for their commiting a crime against society. That some prisons attempt to reform the convicted individual does not negate what the principle of prisons are all about. To serve justice for one's criminal act. Ie vengence of society upon the wrong-doer.
Death-row convicts have also escaped. I don't think poor prison oversight a very strong argument.
edit:
Well sentencing people to prison once they are convicted of a crime - is not because of any other principle but retribution (SP) for their commiting a crime against society. That some prisons attempt to reform the convicted individual does not negate what the principle of prisons are all about. To serve justice for one's criminal act. Ie vengence of society upon the wrong-doer.First, you're not killing someone for revenge- like I said. Second, I see other purposes than retribution as apparent. As you mention, reform- but also it is a deterrent. Also, while they are in prison they are unable to re-offend. So, yes, I think there are many other reasons above retribution. In fact, I don't put any stock at all in foggy notions such as retribution or societal balance as reasons for criminal justice.
sharrukin
08-08-2005, 01:53
Death-row convicts have also escaped. I don't think poor prison oversight a very strong argument.
The above point addresses the false statement below.
Also, while they are in prison they are unable to re-offend.
The above point addresses the false statement below.
What's false? If they escape they aren't in prison are they? And it's a poor argument for execution, because as Ive said, people have escape while waiting on death row as well. In both cases, escapes are extremely rare and always due to negligence by the prisons.
sharrukin
08-08-2005, 02:01
What's false? If they escape they aren't in prison are they?
:laugh4:
Your right! Your logic is impeccable!
I really wasn't trying to be cheeky. :shrug:
My point was, and is, that arguing they should be executed because they might possibly escape is invalid since a death sentence isn't even sufficient to guarentee that they won't escape.
sharrukin
08-08-2005, 02:27
I really wasn't trying to be cheeky. :shrug:
My point was, and is, that arguing they should be executed because they might possibly escape is invalid since a death sentence isn't even sufficient to guarentee that they won't escape.
True, but it does have validity if you want to argue that an extensive prison term is risk free for those, who would otherwise not be around to attempt an escape.
Innocent lives will be lost if we choose LWOP in place of execution. They (the innocents) don't need to die, and that is the point!
Death-row convicts have also escaped. I don't think poor prison oversight a very strong argument.
edit:
First, you're not killing someone for revenge- like I said. Second, I see other purposes than retribution as apparent. As you mention, reform- but also it is a deterrent. Also, while they are in prison they are unable to re-offend. So, yes, I think there are many other reasons above retribution. In fact, I don't put any stock at all in foggy notions such as retribution or societal balance as reasons for criminal justice.
Then one must do a little more research about criminal justice
http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Criminal_justice
Theories
There are several basic theories regarding criminal justice and its relation to individual rights and social control:
Restorative justice assumes that the victim or their heirs or neighbors can be in some way restored to a condition "just as good as" before the criminal incident. Substantially it builds on traditions in common law and tort law that requires all who commit wrong to be penalized. In recent time these penalties that restorative justice advocates have included community service, restitution, and alternatives to imprisonment that keep the offender active in the community, and re-socialized him into society. Some suggest that it is a weak way to punish criminal who must be deterred, these critics are often proponents of
Retributive justice or the "eye for an eye" approach. Assuming that the victim or their heirs or neighbors have the right to do to the offender what was done to the victim. These ideas fuel support for capital punishment for murder, amputation for theft (as in some versions of the sharia).
Psychiatric imprisonment treats crime nominally as illness, and assumes that it can be treated by psychoanalysis, drugs, and other techniques associated with psychiatry and medicine, but in forcible confinement. It is more commonly associated with crime that does not appear to have animal emotion or human economic motives, nor even any clear benefit to the offender, but has idiosyncratic characteristics that make it hard for society to comprehend, thus hard to trust the individual if released into society.
Transformative justice does not assume that there is any reasonable comparison between the lives of victims nor offenders before and after the incident. It discourages such comparisons and measurements, and emphasizes the trust of the society in each member, including trust in the offender not to re-offend, and of the victim (or heirs) not to avenge.
In addition, there are models of criminal justice systems which try to explain how these institutions achieve justice.
The Consensus Model argues that the organizations of a criminal justice system do, or should, cooperate.
The Conflict Model assumes that the organizations of a criminal justice system do, or should, compete.
Papewaio
08-08-2005, 03:21
I didn't reply because I didn't think it was a serious question.
Of course! Any nation that rejects capital punishment is morally inferior. I Consider socialism and its attendant baggage as morally inferior. It is just one more example of the feminization of societies that comfortable in their cafes do not understand the reality of evil. Capital punishment has been the standard for jurisprudential thought since the rise of Civilization. The reason being, it is almost impossible to come up with a sound understanding of law and punishment without it. Capital punishment is directly tied to equity which is the basis for law.
Have you been possessed by Navaros lately?
I don't equate feminisation with lack of Capital punishment. It is quite a sexist, offensive and uncivilised notion to think that women and men are not equal.
Nor drinking coffee with not wanting the death penalty. If it was that simple to get rid of violent tendancies then we would put all offenders on a Cafe Latte Anger Management program.
The world used to be the center of the Universe. Just because something used to be the standard of old does not automatically mean it is the standard now. To say something is okay because it is traditional is to limit ones advancement. If the law is to be just, it would have to be current. Things like slavery where once just.
Capital punishment is about equity, fair enough. What happens to the balance of equity when an innocent is incorrectly sentenced? What ratio of guilty true to guilty untrue balances out this equity? At least with a life sentence if new evidence comes to light that finds the prisoner not guilty he can belatedly regain some of his life. Until you can raise the dead I suggest that carrying out the death sentence is not necessarily the most equitable solution nor the most harsh.
Also when you do get the right person does equity exist if that person has already killed more the one other. Sure you can kill the serial killer or terrorist but he has already killed 5, 10, 50, 3000 others. Can equity be gained by killing them?
The State has the right to do something, does not mean it is the right thing to do.
Any nation that rejects capital punishment is morally inferior. I Consider socialism and its attendant baggage as morally inferior.
Was this a jibe or a serious response? What is wrong with socialism as practiced by democratic governments running a capitalistic economy? I always thought they work hand in hand rather well, as the strengths and weaknesses of each are mitgated and they can be used to strengthen each other. Also what kind of civilisation can you call it that seeks not to look after its weakest? The issue I have with some flavours of socialism are those that remove competition and make social welfare a life style choice rather then an emergency option or a long term option for those who have served their country (pensions etc). Other issues are when socialism goal becomes instead of raising intedependent and intradependent members it creates hordes of zombie dependents who never get out of that rut. Ultimately a good social system should mitigate the harshest times and get people the skills to climb to their fullest potential.
Voigtkampf
08-08-2005, 12:17
And yet, they don't have to kill you for speeding for it to have a deterrent effect.
True.
Criteria 1 and 3 are both fullfilled by life imprisonment, in fact, according to Pindar, life imprisonment is torture and worse than death- so it's deterrent effect should be greater on those grounds.
Not everyone shares that impression. Most of people that haven’t been in prison, in matter a fact, fear death more then prison. Those who have been in prison are very often more willing to die shooting the cops down then to go back inside again. Consider this.
I think 2 must be where everyone isn't seeing eye to(for?) eye. Compensation, where possible, is well and fine. Someone steals your tv, the police catch him, you should be compensated for it. However, there is no compensation for having a loved one murdered.
No complete compensation, of course, because the complete balance cannot be restored. A murdered person cannot be revived. But there are degrees of compensation. If someone wrecks your car, it is no sufficient compensation that he gives you 100 dollars (unless you were driving a real piece of crap ;)), he must pay far more then that. Even if he pays back the value of the car, the attachment you had to the car, the memories of your first sex in it, no one can compensate that. But the more it gets compensated, the easier can one bear the loss.
When beloved one is murdered, having his murderer executed gives the bereaved ones more satisfaction/compensation back then sentencing the perpetrator to 20 years/for life. How often did you see men going to prison for 20 years for rape and murder of a six year old girl? You think that is righteous? I don’t.
And still, even if I agree with Pindar-sama’s arguments, I do not support his position.
I would be much more barbaric to the really vile offenders, rapists, mass murderers. I wouldn’t give them the benefits of the death penalty, the easy way out. I’d make them go into forced labor and spend the rest of their days in pain and misery. If you are looking for a barbaric person in this thread, look no further, it’s me.
The death of the murderer does not bring anyone back- all if does is provide for vengeance.
Again, the three points outlined above.
My position is consistent in that killing people who are not a threat, is best avoided.
I agree. Bring out the chains and a pick.
It is quite a sexist, offensive and uncivilised notion to think that women and men are not equal.
Men and women are not equal.
Only equality that there is and can be is the equality before the law.
bmolsson
08-08-2005, 13:12
Only equality that there is and can be is the equality before the law.
There are currently no society that offers equality before the law. :book:
Posted by Pindar
If you consider war only justified in self defense (as a response to attack) then you must reject the American Revolution which was an offensive act.
Xiahou, I think that's something of an over-simplification(secundum quid?). The fight for independence had many causes, including the deprivation of rights to property and self-determination of the Americans by the crown. You know, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and so on. ~;)
Actually my statement, aside from the conditional (because I wasn't sure if I understood your view) is deductive not inductive. There is no secudnum quid issue.
As far as cause is concerned. My point wasn't concerned with justifications, but the act of rebellion itself. Rebellion is an offensive act. It is an attack upon the existing system. This is true formally as well as true historically as the rebels were first to draw blood. The British were trying to maintain the status quo.
Yes, murder is a threat to society...
The only argument I see still standing is killing for vengeance. People are entitled to their opinions, but I, in principle at least, can't agree with killing someone out of revenge.
What seems to be missing here is any reflection on the nature of justice. I have argued that justice is at core an equity relation. An unbalance can serve as an injustice. This is the rationale for punishment. Regarding murder, the only way to properly meet the demands of justice and give redress is for the sacrifice of the guilty. Now objections to CP have been:
-It's barbaric: which is emotive
-The innocent may also be killed: which is the same in cases of war (friendly fire, collateral damage) which creates an inconsistency regarding state sponsored killing.
-It isn't necessary given the threat is removed through imprisonment: which doesn't respond to the base inequity caused through the original act of murder.
None of these objections seem to offer any counter to what justice actually entails.
Have you been possessed by Navaros lately?
That's a scary thought.
I don't equate feminisation with lack of Capital punishment. It is quite a sexist, offensive and uncivilised notion to think that women and men are not equal.
You missed the point. Feminization does not refer to gender equality.
Capital punishment is about equity, fair enough. What happens to the balance of equity when an innocent is incorrectly sentenced?
If the innocent are condemned that is a miscarriage of justice. If the innocent die due to friendly fire or collateral damage on the battlefield that is also a tragedy, but it does not deter one from prosecuting a just war. All systems fail in some regard. The foibles of men are what they are. If a man condemned to a life sentence lives out that sentence and then after the fact new evidence comes to light showing his innocence that is also a miscarriage of justice. Judicial systems and the decisions contained therein must be concerned with the facts at hand, not fear of an inability to give redress if some unknown factor changes the whole equation. One cannot prove a negative nor base a system of justice upon it.
Also when you do get the right person does equity exist if that person has already killed more the one other. Sure you can kill the serial killer or terrorist but he has already killed 5, 10, 50, 3000 others. Can equity be gained by killing them?
Yes.
The State has the right to do something, does not mean it is the right thing to do.
Yes it does. Rights language implies moral force.
Was this a jibe or a serious response?
Both.
What is wrong with socialism as practiced by democratic governments running a capitalistic economy?.... Also what kind of civilisation can you call it that seeks not to look after its weakest?
Socialism breeds dependency and apathy through the avoidance of responsibility. It is not the government's job to look after people. It's people's job to look after each other. Bureaucracies are not moral agents.
As far as cause is concerned. My point wasn't concerned with justifications, but the act of rebellion itself. Rebellion is an offensive act. It is an attack upon the existing system. This is true formally as well as true historically as the rebels were first to draw blood. The British were trying to maintain the status quo.As much as you may like to, you can't dismiss the reasons or justification. That would be like calling all killing murder regardless of its reasons, like self-defense. If you're trying to ask how I feel about armed rebellions in general, then I tend not to like them because they are bloody messy affairs. But, as is the case in the American Revolution, there can be just cause. It's not a black and white issue.
What seems to be missing here is any reflection on the nature of justice. I have argued that justice is at core an equity relation. An unbalance can serve as an injustice. This is the rationale for punishment. Regarding murder, the only way to properly meet the demands of justice and give redress is for the sacrifice of the guilty. Now objections to CP have been:
-It's barbaric: which is emotive
-The innocent may also be killed: which is the same in cases of war (friendly fire, collateral damage) which creates an inconsistency regarding state sponsored killing.
-It isn't necessary given the threat is removed through imprisonment: which doesn't respond to the base inequity caused through the original act of murder.
None of these objections seem to offer any counter to what justice actually entails.Your third point is the one that doesn't stand. Firstly, killing a murderer doesn't achieve equity- the victim is still dead and I doubt many value the life of a murderer as equal with that of an innocent. Or, what of serial killers? You can only execute someone once- what about the other victims? Where's the equity?
Pushing that aside, what is the benefit to this ethereal notion of "equity"? What does killing a prisoner achieve that isn't achieved by their permanent incarceration?
As much as you may like to, you can't dismiss the reasons or justification. That would be like calling all killing murder regardless of its reasons, like self-defense. If you're trying to ask how I feel about armed rebellions in general, then I tend not to like them because they are bloody messy affairs. But, as is the case in the American Revolution, there can be just cause. It's not a black and white issue.
I am not dismissing the reasons or causes for revolution. I am pointing out, correctly I might add, that revolution (justified or no) is an offensive action. That is the point. This is black and white.
Your third point is the one that doesn't stand. Firstly, killing a murderer doesn't achieve equity- the victim is still dead and I doubt many value the life of a murderer as equal with that of an innocent. Or, what of serial killers? You can only execute someone once- what about the other victims? Where's the equity?
Equity is in the redress equal to the damage done, to the degree it is possible. The murder of a person is the complete erasure and removal of all possibilities of that person. The death of the murderer is the only comparable act of redress.
Pushing that aside, what is the benefit to this ethereal notion of "equity"?
Equity is considered the basis of justice. Justice is considered the basis of law. A society of law is superior to barbarism in that it creates a uniform standard whereby order can be maintained, security instilled, fairness documented and peace abound.
What does killing a prisoner achieve that isn't achieved by their permanent incarceration?
Justice.
Steppe Merc
08-08-2005, 22:39
Pindar, I can't compete with your logic. However, I just feel that killing someone who is unarmed and in custody is wrong. Killing is something that should always be avoided.
I'd prefer to be morally inferior and insure that no innocents are killed than be morrally superior and kill many evil people while killing one innocent. Perhaps that is wrong, or doesn't make sense. But it doesn't change the fact that that is what I believe, and that I will not change that opinon.
Pindar, I can't compete with your logic. However, I just feel that killing someone who is unarmed and in custody is wrong. Killing is something that should always be avoided.
I'd prefer to be morally inferior and insure that no innocents are killed than be morrally superior and kill many evil people while killing one innocent. Perhaps that is wrong, or doesn't make sense. But it doesn't change the fact that that is what I believe, and that I will not change that opinon.
Going with your feelings: if Hiler had been captured, it would have been wrong to execute him? Is this your view?
Going with your feelings: if Hiler had been captured, it would have been wrong to execute him? Is this your view?
It should be everyone's view.
scooter_the_shooter
08-09-2005, 00:41
I am pretty sure if you were a jew in the 40s you would think different :embarassed:
So when we get osama will you want him to live also???
scooter_the_shooter
08-09-2005, 00:52
Why??? not kill osama
what about killing in self defence, what do you think of it.
example
You are minding your own buisness at home; Some crack head comes in with an ax and tries to get you, you shoot him (well in the uk you have to hit him with your cricket bat ~D ) is it justified?
Killing in self defence is always justified if you felt you were severely threatened enough to use that kind of force and there was no other way to use force to stop yourself being harmed other than to kill the attacker. I would never have a problem with someone killing another person if these criteria are met.
I do have a problem with state sanctioned murder or society sanctioned murder, it does not reflect well upon those in a society to behave in such ways. Nor does it solve anything.
scooter_the_shooter
08-09-2005, 00:59
Yes it does solve something...it brings justice.
And you still didnt answer my question about if you were a jew in the fortys.
And another question are you a pacsifist?
Retribution is not justice.
If I were a Jew in the 40's eh? Well I was and am not, so it doesn't apply. It is like asking what I would feel like if I was a flea on a Dog's arse. It doesn't apply, I do not have the experience and will never be in that situation so whatever I say is meaningless. On top of that, whatever I would say is meaningless because if I was to have been in the situation I could have felt completely different anyway. So for me to give an answer to your question would be as meaningful as me typing random letters. asadwqs vdsfsd vdffvfd aewdjfioaj adj sqadjsap pojap j.
OK?
pac·i·fism Audio pronunciation of "pacifist" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ps-fzm)
n.
1. The belief that disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully.
2.
1. Opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes.
2. Such opposition demonstrated by refusal to participate in military action.
Yes.
However I do believe military action and violent action - as I have stated already - is needed and justified at times.
I am not dismissing the reasons or causes for revolution. I am pointing out, correctly I might add, that revolution (justified or no) is an offensive action. That is the point. This is black and white.I don't know that it's so black and white. The American revolution was about protecting our rights, property and self-determination. You call it an offensive attack, I think it's a matter of saying 'enough is enough'.
Equity is considered the basis of justice. Justice is considered the basis of law. A society of law is superior to barbarism in that it creates a uniform standard whereby order can be maintained, security instilled, fairness documented and peace abound.Where does the death penalty fit into this? It creates equity- without such equity (executions) there can be no justice? You're going to have to do more that just say it's so to convince me. Give me something concrete. You can have uniform standards and equal treatment under the law without executions.
Steppe Merc
08-09-2005, 01:50
I agree with JAG 100 percent in this matter. Perhaps we do not have great arguments for our viewpoints, but that is what we believe.
Saying to quit while he is ahead is like one of us telling a religous person to quit while there ahead, because they have far less proof of god than there is proof of not god.
Pindar, yes, Hitler should not have been killed. He should have been in a highly public trial that anyone could come to to see the monster, then locked up in a cell until he died.
Osama would be even more logical to be kept alive. He could give extremely important information about Al Quedia. Then he should be given a very public, fair trial, sentenced to be locked up in a cell until he dies. Killing him would make him a martyr.
Killing in self defense, war, and assassination of a legitimate target (Osama or Hitler, for example), is to be avoided, but in the end, acceptable.
JAG, your argument is shot full of holes. You can't support it with anything but " It should be everyone's view."
Can you show me where I have tried to justify my belief? If not - as you will not be able to since I have purely given opinion on the matter of the death penalty - how can you state that my argument is "full of holes"? I haven't given one.
I can support my view perfectly, thank you very much, if I choose to do it you will be the first to know.
Pindar, yes, Hitler should not have been killed. He should have been in a highly public trial that anyone could come to to see the monster, then locked up in a cell until he died.
Osama would be even more logical to be kept alive. He could give extremely important information about Al Quedia. Then he should be given a very public, fair trial, sentenced to be locked up in a cell until he dies. Killing him would make him a martyr.
Killing in self defense, war, and assassination of a legitimate target (Osama or Hitler, for example), is to be avoided, but in the end, acceptable.
See, I might disagree just a bit there. I think they can be killed, if it's determined to be for the greater good. For example, if Osama were imprisoned, and his being alive drives a terrorist movement bent on freeing him- highjackings, ect... I say put him down. More people shouldn't have to die just so we can keep one scumbag alive. ~;)
Honestly, I don't feel near so strongly about capital punishment as I do say... abortion. Because, when you get down to it, the people being executed have brought it on themselves through their own actions. In principle, yes, I'm opposed to uneccessary killing (which I feel it is), but you won't see me out protesting any executions.
Posted by Pindar
Going with your feelings: if Hitler had been captured, it would have been wrong to execute him? Is this your view?
It should be everyone's view.
Killing in self defence is always justified
ceasar010: "And another question are you a pacifist?"
Yes...
Killing in self defence is always justified
JAG,
Your comments are a non sequitur writ large.
removal of "colorful" language - Ser Clegane
Steppe Merc
08-09-2005, 02:11
Xiahou, well if he's trying to escape or something, it's all good. But he could be easily turned into a martyr if killed "Osama's in (whatever the Jihadist's heaven is) with his whole bunch of virgins, yay, let's all join him". Not that that isn't already happening... Hmm.
I don't know that it's so black and white. The American revolution was about protecting our rights, property and self-determination. You call it an offensive attack, I think it's a matter of saying 'enough is enough'.
Saying 'enough is enough' is fine, but the Revolution was an offensive act. Theoretically this should be clear. Practically it is also obvious. Lexington and Concord, the first engagements of the Revolution, were militia attacking British troops on the march.
Pindar, Equity is considered the basis of justice. Justice is considered the basis of law. A society of law is superior to barbarism in that it creates a uniform standard whereby order can be maintained, security instilled, fairness documented and peace abound.
Where does the death penalty fit into this? It creates equity- without such equity (executions) there can be no justice? You're going to have to do more that just say it's so to convince me. Give me something concrete. You can have uniform standards and equal treatment under the law without executions.
Recall your question: "Pushing that aside, what is the benefit to this ethereal notion of "equity"? " The above is a brief explanation of the 'benefit' of equity. It is the basis of justice systems and has been so for literally millennia of intellectual history. CP, also concerned with justice, fits into this rubric.
Now I have already explained the whys and wherefores of equity, but I can give an explanation again if you would like. Equity refers to redress. It refers to a basic owed status. If I steal someone's cow, justice demands I return the cow or its equivalent value. If I seize anything not my own the same dynamic applies. Taking someone's life (murder) is a theft of the thing most personal to the self. How does one give redress? By losing one's own life, nothing else can compare in value.
Uniform standards are no guarantee of justice. One may think uniformity is a necessary condition for justice, but alone it is not sufficient.
EDIT: removal of "colorful" language - Ser Clegane
JAG, don't be vulgar. If you cannot put forward a rational and defensible view, best avoid the discussion.
EDIT: I concur - Ser Clegane
See, I might disagree just a bit there. I think they can be killed, if it's determined to be for the greater good.
This would seem to undercut your opposition to CP.
Pindar, yes, Hitler should not have been killed.
Killing in self defense, war, and assassination of a legitimate target (Osama or Hitler, for example), is to be avoided, but in the end, acceptable.
These two statements seem strained.
This would seem to undercut your opposition to CP.
Not in my mind.
Like I've said, I'm opposed to needless or senseless death. If people are being blown up because were have Osama in prison, I'd say it'd be time to reevaluate that. I'm not so naive as to think that our civilization can exist without some deaths- they had just better be for good reason. Self-defense, was my clearest example of that.
I'm sure even you'd agree that if we had our druthers, everyone would be happy and live in peace and harmony- we both know that's not possible, at least on this world.
Steppe Merc
08-09-2005, 02:50
These two statements seem strained.
How so? I am against the principal of war and assassinations, but I know that it has to happen sometimes, especially in the case of genocide etc. Someone who is in custody, unarmed, and isn't a direct threat is totally different from killing someone who is armed and dangerous and trying to kill people.
scooter_the_shooter
08-09-2005, 03:27
How so? I am against the principal of war and assassinations, but I know that it has to happen sometimes, especially in the case of genocide etc.
Then why dont you support iraq, That dictator ship killed hundreds of thousands of people
Steppe Merc
08-09-2005, 03:31
Because at the beggining of the war, it seemed to me that the people of Iraq would be hurt more by an invasion. In addition, there were (and still are) many other murderos nuts, and it seems hypocritical to just go after one.
Now that we are in Iraq, I believe it would be far more harmful to pull out. It doesn't mean that I support the war, however.
Kanamori
08-09-2005, 04:33
Uniform standards are no guarantee of justice. One may think uniformity is a necessary condition for justice, but alone it is not sufficient.
If we assume that justice relies on more than just uniformity, does that mean uniformity is not necessary for justice? If that isn't what the statement means, I do not understand the inclusion of "but". Please, explain. (I understand the appeal to some other moral authority. What if that moral authority only includes uniformity as the requirment for justice?)
Saying 'enough is enough' is fine, but the Revolution was an offensive act. Theoretically this should be clear. Practically it is also obvious. Lexington and Concord, the first engagements of the Revolution, were militia attacking British troops on the march.Yes, but what were they on the march to do? It certainly wasn't a parade....
Recall your question: "Pushing that aside, what is the benefit to this ethereal notion of "equity"? " The above is a brief explanation of the 'benefit' of equity. It is the basis of justice systems and has been so for literally millennia of intellectual history. CP, also concerned with justice, fits into this rubric.Simply stating that equity is the basis of criminal justice doesn't prove it so.
Now I have already explained the whys and wherefores of equity, but I can give an explanation again if you would like. Equity refers to redress. It refers to a basic owed status. If I steal someone's cow, justice demands I return the cow or its equivalent value. If I seize anything not my own the same dynamic applies. Taking someone's life (murder) is a theft of the thing most personal to the self. How does one give redress? By losing one's own life, nothing else can compare in value.Replacing one's cow vs killing yourself is not the same. There's no compensation in the murders death. When you replace a cow, you have your posession back. When you execute a murderer, the murdered is still dead. All you've achieved is killing yet another person. There's no compensating someone for being dead, because no matter what you do they're still dead.
Not in my mind.
Like I've said, I'm opposed to needless or senseless death. If people are being blown up because were have Osama in prison, I'd say it'd be time to reevaluate that. I'm not so naive as to think that our civilization can exist without some deaths- they had just better be for good reason. Self-defense, was my clearest example of that.
I'm sure even you'd agree that if we had our druthers, everyone would be happy and live in peace and harmony- we both know that's not possible, at least on this world.
Interesting, so you have a qualified acceptance of CP. CP as an expediency is OK (kill bin Laden to stop bombings). Is that right?
Yes, but what were they on the march to do? It certainly wasn't a parade....
I hope the larger point (revolutions are offensive acts) isn't going to get lost in the details. The British column was marching to secure an armory because they feared bloodshed may be in the near future: given the Boston Tea Party an other attacks had already occurred.
This tangent began because you said something akin to: war could only be justified if it were self defense (suggesting responding to an attack). I have pointed to the birth of the nation as an offensive act. Therefore one must either condemn the Revolution or reconsider the initial view.
The Good Guys The above is a brief explanation of the 'benefit' of equity. It is the basis of justice systems and has been so for literally millennia of intellectual history. CP, also concerned with justice, fits into this rubric.
Simply stating that equity is the basis of criminal justice doesn't prove it so.
I don't understand this. Are you challenging the historical point? If so, please refer to the Code of Hammurabi, the Mosaic Law, the Athenian Constitution or any Greek city state, Roman Law (say the Code of Justinian) on down to the birth of the U.S. I am unaware of any judicial code that does not refer to equity as a cardinal principle.
If this is meant to suggest you will put forward a non-equity based jurisprudence: please do so.
Replacing one's cow vs killing yourself is not the same. There's no compensation in the murders death. When you replace a cow, you have your posession back. When you execute a murderer, the murdered is still dead. All you've achieved is killing yet another person. There's no compensating someone for being dead, because no matter what you do they're still dead.
I have not advocated killing yourself.
Quite right, there is no compensating the dead, you cannot give them back their metaphorical cow: it has been permanently erased and that is the point. Their murder is infinite in scope. They will not be coming back, ever. This infinite loss reflects back on the murderer. A debt is owed the murdered A dept is owed the state whose citizen was killed, and a dept is owed his Creator who is the source of life (assuming theological appeals have some quarter). The administrator of justice is the state therefore it is left to the state to collect on the dept. The nature of that collection must be a comparable loss: the murderer gave up the right to his own life when he took another's. This is the nature of justice.
How so? I am against the principal of war and assassinations, but I know that it has to happen sometimes...
If "it" sometimes has to happen that would suggest some justification of the principle and call into question opposition to the principle.
Interesting, so you have a qualified acceptance of CP. CP as an expediency is OK (kill bin Laden to stop bombings). Is that right?Little in the world is in clear black & white. As I've said, there must be exceptions for the greater good. Killing civillians in bad, I think we can agree- yet, the bombing of Hiroshima was justified to end the war.
I hope the larger point (revolutions are offensive acts) isn't going to get lost in the details. The British column was marching to secure an armory because they feared bloodshed may be in the near future: given the Boston Tea Party an other attacks had already occurred.
This tangent began because you said something akin to: war could only be justified if it were self defense (suggesting responding to an attack). I have pointed to the birth of the nation as an offensive act. Therefore one must either condemn the Revolution or reconsider the initial view.I think the larger point was lost from the beginning on this line of argument. I never said war could only be justified in response to an attack. Personally, I thought the argument was something of a red herring.
I don't understand this. Are you challenging the historical point? If so, please refer to the Code of Hammurabi, the Mosaic Law, the Athenian Constitution or any Greek city state, Roman Law (say the Code of Justinian) on down to the birth of the U.S. I am unaware of any judicial code that does not refer to equity as a cardinal principle. I don't see the need to challenge your historical argument. We no longer cut the hands from theives, stone prostitutes or hang horse thieves. All of these have a historical basis, none are practiced today, and yet we still have a functioning justice system.
Quite right, there is no compensating the dead, you cannot give them back their metaphorical cow: it has been permanently erased and that is the point. Their murder is infinite in scope. They will not be coming back, ever. This infinite loss reflects back on the murderer. A debt is owed the murdered A dept is owed the state whose citizen was killed, and a dept is owed his Creator who is the source of life (assuming theological appeals have some quarter). The administrator of justice is the state therefore it is left to the state to collect on the dept. The nature of that collection must be a comparable loss: the murderer gave up the right to his own life when he took another's. This is the nature of justice.I don't know your religion, but mine doesn't teach that God demands an eye for an eye or a life for a life.
Gawain of Orkeny
08-09-2005, 19:00
A bit off topic but on the news last night they were disscussing Saddams trial and sentencing. The people of Irq said the only question is do they hang him as murderer or shoot him as a miltary criminal. ~;)
A bit off topic but on the news last night they were disscussing Saddams trial and sentencing. The people of Irq said the only question is do they hang him as murderer or shoot him as a miltary criminal. ~;)Fine with me, if that's what they decide to do. I don't think that country will ever be able to move beyond Saddam's reign of terror while he's still alive. ~:cheers:
Steppe Merc
08-09-2005, 19:04
Hmm. I thought he was being held in America... he's being tried in Iraq? Or am I confused here?
Uniform standards are no guarantee of justice. One may think uniformity is a necessary condition for justice, but alone it is not sufficient.
If we assume that justice relies on more than just uniformity, does that mean uniformity is not necessary for justice? If that isn't what the statement means, I do not understand the inclusion of "but". Please, explain. (I understand the appeal to some other moral authority. What if that moral authority only includes uniformity as the requirment for justice?)
Necessity and sufficiency are logical conditions. Necessity applies to a standard that cannot be otherwise for some X, but cannot produce the X alone. For example: one must attend class in order to graduate, but it doesn't follow that simple attendance guarantees graduation. Sufficiency means all required conditions for X have been met. For example: reciting the Shahada in faith, "There is no God, but Allah and Muhammad is His prophet" is sufficient to be considered Muslim.
Now relating this to jurisprudence: uniformity may be a standard one appeals to when setting out a code of justice, but uniformity alone does not guarantee justice.
Gawain of Orkeny
08-09-2005, 19:06
Hmm. I thought he was being held in America... he's being tried in Iraq? Or am I confused here?
You are indeed confused. We are niether Trying him nor holding him. We transfered him to the Iraqis long ago with great fanfare I might add.
Steppe Merc
08-09-2005, 19:10
Ah. Well, thanks for clearing that up. :bow:
I don't see the need to challenge your historical argument. We no longer cut the hands from theives, stone prostitutes or hang horse thieves. All of these have a historical basis, none are practiced today, and yet we still have a functioning justice system.
Our semi-functioning justice system does not reject equity as a judicial standard. Punishment itself is based on this principle. Attempts at direct or comparable redress are the standard. With murder there is nothing comparable save the equal death of the murderer.
I don't know your religion, but mine doesn't teach that God demands an eye for an eye or a life for a life.
Your God may not demand such, but the Traditional understanding of the Judeo-Christian God certainly does. Christians typically recognize both the Old and New Testaments (NT) as canonical. There is no prohibition or rejection of CP in the NT. Quite the contrary: Romans 1: 32 would serve as an example:
"Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."
Further, the whole thrust of the Atonement is that Christ takes the just retribution for sin upon Himself being clean, so that those who would otherwise qualify as condemned can yet be redeemed.
Thus, the general interpretation of Christian theology upholds an equity standard. Secular government does as well.
Kanamori
08-09-2005, 20:42
Necessity and sufficiency are logical conditions. Necessity applies to a standard that cannot be otherwise for some X, but cannot produce the X alone. For example: one must attend class in order to graduate, but it doesn't follow that simple attendance guarantees graduation. Sufficiency means all required conditions for X have been met. For example: reciting the Shahada in faith, "There is no God, but Allah and Muhammad is His prophet" is sufficient to be considered Muslim.
You are quite right. Lol, I believe I have shown that posting under the influence is not a good idea ~:cheers:
Our semi-functioning justice system does not reject equity as a judicial standard. Punishment itself is based on this principle. Attempts at direct or comparable redress are the standard. With murder there is nothing comparable save the equal death of the murderer.Semi-functioning? Because we don't stone prostitutes, or for some other reason?
Your God may not demand such, but the Traditional understanding of the Judeo-Christian God certainly does. Christians typically recognize both the Old and New Testaments (NT) as canonical. There is no prohibition or rejection of CP in the NT. Quite the contrary: Romans 1: 32 would serve as an example:Yes, both are recognized, but the NT supercedes the OT.
Thus, the general interpretation of Christian theology upholds an equity standard. Secular government does as well.I disagree. Retribution, perhaps- not equity.
I recently read an article entitled "Catholicism & Capital Punishment" by Cardinal Dulles which I found quite interesting. I won't do it the disservice of posting excerpts nor do I want to fill this page quoting it's entirity- I would encourage anyone interested to read it here. (http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0104/articles/dulles.html) I find myself agreeing with most of what he writes, particularly on the modern view of the state.
Gawain of Orkeny
08-09-2005, 21:36
If not for the death penalty there probably would be no such thing as Christianity. ~:)
You are quite right. Lol, I believe I have shown that posting under the influence is not a good idea ~:cheers:
~:cheers:
Semi-functioning? Because we don't stone prostitutes, or for some other reason?
Semi-functioning because of all the nasty things that go on in the name of justice. I see this stuff up close and personal all the time.
Yes, both are recognized, but the NT supercedes the OT.
The Book of Romans is in the NT. The NT does not reject CP nor did any major strand of Christianity until the Modern Period.
I disagree. Retribution, perhaps- not equity.
Retribution is equity.
Semi-functioning because of all the nasty things that go on in the name of justice. I see this stuff up close and personal all the time. I don't doubt that. Nor do I think it's anything new.
Retribution is equity.Retribution is punishment, not necessarily equity. How do you feel about the different 'levels' of murder? Manslaughter, 1st, 2nd, 3rd degree homicide? Should they all be executed? If not, where is the equity?
Retribution is punishment, not necessarily equity.
Retribution literally means to pay back. It therefore has an implicit sense of something owed: some needed redress.
Equity means: balanced, even, equal.
To retribute a thing is therefore to return to balance.
How do you feel about the different 'levels' of murder? Manslaughter, 1st, 2nd, 3rd degree homicide? Should they all be executed? If not, where is the equity?
Murder implies intent. Only 1st and 2nd degree are considered murder: both are in the ball park. Manslaughter is accidental though negligent death. Given manslaughter is the absence of intent I would generally say execution is not necessary. This is the standard view.
Papewaio
08-10-2005, 03:01
Socialism breeds dependency and apathy through the avoidance of responsibility. It is not the government's job to look after people. It's people's job to look after each other. Bureaucracies are not moral agents.
a) If it is not the government's job to look after people, what right do they have to govern peoples lives at all?
b)What moral force does the government have in getting involved in peoples lives if not for looking out for the people?
c) What would you think of a socialistic system that was geared to create individuals who are independent and engaged in society?
Steppe Merc
08-10-2005, 03:54
Thank you very much Pape. :bow: The government doesn't really have any point if not to help people.
sharrukin
08-10-2005, 04:03
a) If it is not the government's job to look after people, what right do they have to govern peoples lives at all?
b)What moral force does the government have in getting involved in peoples lives if not for looking out for the people?
c) What would you think of a socialistic system that was geared to create individuals who are independent and engaged in society?
Any concept of justice that sacrifices the individual for societal ends will ultimately become destructive in practice. In general, individuals will do what works, and not do what doesn't work. If human actions are meaningless, they will not bother to act. We must have a reasonable assurance that our actions will bring results, and that those results can be at least guessed at. In society there is a desperate need for cause and effect. We do not live in a universe lacking in cause and effect, and mans history is the search for exactly this.
We as humans, order our own societies, and we need this to be true in our social groupings, just as in nature. If society does not recognize and render significant the link between human actions and their consequences, then our society will descend into chaos. There needs to be a guarantee that our actions for good or ill, will have meaning.
This is the collectivists (socialism and its mean cousin communism) greatest weakness as it severs the link between individual action and the benefits of those actions. That individuals who did not act, should benefit from the actions of others. This is the reason for the recent implosions of collectivist societies worldwide. Communism at its essence is immoral and unjust. If we do not recognize 'Free Will' and moral responsibility in men, then we are not discussing justice at all.
This does not mean that the state has no role but it does mean that the greater its role the more harm it will eventually do. We, as a society, must balance the harm done by the potential for good.
Collectivism fails because of natural human selfishness and greed. To minimise government is to pander to this human nature and let it have the run of the place. Human nature cannot be relied upon to produce results that are beneficial for the greater population, because that it the exact opposite of what it is motivated by.
I believe in the greatness of human potential, but we always have, and always will, require governing. This is not a nanny mentality, just an observation based on the entire history of humankind.
Retribution literally means to pay back. It therefore has an implicit sense of something owed: some needed redress.
Equity means: balanced, even, equal.
To retribute a thing is therefore to return to balance. How do you arrive at that conclusion? Yes, retribution is to 'pay back' in the simplest terms, but it does not have to mean equal 'pay back'.
Murder implies intent. Only 1st and 2nd degree are considered murder: both are in the ball park. Manslaughter is accidental though negligent death. Given manslaughter is the absence of intent I would generally say execution is not necessary. This is the standard view.Ok, now this is interesting. In your view there should be no equity in cases of manslaughter or 3rd degree murder? As to the "standard view", in this country I'm not aware of second degree murderers being eligible for the death penalty either- no equity there either.
Voigtkampf
08-10-2005, 07:48
There are currently no society that offers equality before the law. :book:
Is this a complete and utter ignorance on your behalf or simply a poor attempt of sarcasm?
Voigtkampf
08-10-2005, 07:54
JAG, don't be vulgar. If you cannot put forward a rational and defensible view, best avoid the discussion.
EDIT: I concur - Ser Clegane
"Will minus intellect constitutes vulgarity." Arthur Schopenhauer
a) If it is not the government's job to look after people, what right do they have to govern peoples lives at all?
Government has no right to govern people's lives. Government exists at the behest of the governed: its terms and conditions are determined by the same. Government is a construct.
b)What moral force does the government have in getting involved in peoples lives if not for looking out for the people?
The essential justification for government from the Enlightenment forward has been protection. This means protection against the predatory practice of other groups (polities), and internal threats (criminals). To use Hobbes phrase, life in the absence of government would be: "nasty, brutish and short". One may consider this rationale a moral force, but it is more akin to a simple expediency. Arguing a moral basis for government involvement is problematic from a secular perspective.
c) What would you think of a socialistic system that was geared to create individuals who are independent and engaged in society?
A collectivist system geared to create individuals...hmmm.
Despite the stickiness of the above, I do think I have an idea of what you are aiming for. The founders of the American Revolution were deeply concerned with justifying a move toward democracy. Recall, democracy was not a new idea, but it was a rejected idea. Most saw democracy as mobocracy: the unruly masses lack the wherewithal for self governance. The Founders argued that freedom could be justified to the degree that freedom was used to instill the necessary virtue to govern society: freedom for freedom's sake was an absurdity. Notions of the good and the individuals essential role were paramount concerns. The good and its attendant virtues appealed to the Judeo-Christian Tradition. This is one of the reasons they made reference to natural law with language like: unalienable rights. From this perspective government does not create morality, indeed cannot create morality, rather it creates the space through which moral agents arise. A simple example of this was Jefferson's Anti-Federalism. This agrarian model saw that the development of the moral man required independence from government bureaucracy and dependency. The citizen who can properly guide the state cannot be a slave to it. This is one of the reasons Jefferson was so keen on the Louisiana Purchase as it would provide the space where men could live and develop free of government intrusion: corruption and sycophancy.
Socialist models as they are typically put forward with their command economies and collectivist mentality are an assault on the very basis of the moral which begins with the subject, the "I".
How do you arrive at that conclusion? Yes, retribution is to 'pay back' in the simplest terms, but it does not have to mean equal 'pay back'.
So if I owe ten dollars and pay back one then I have fulfilled my obligation? Obviously not. Retribution is to return what is owed, not a portion thereof.
Ok, now this is interesting. In your view there should be no equity in cases of manslaughter or 3rd degree murder? As to the "standard view", in this country I'm not aware of second degree murderers being eligible for the death penalty either- no equity there either.
There is no such thing as 3rd degree murder: note homicide and murder are not the same. Murder requires intent.
Retributive systems operate off of what is owed. To owe a thing is usually tied to a chosen or assumed obligation. A forced contract is not binding for example. Accidents, by definition are unforeseen, unexpected and unwanted events. Cases of manslaughter are accidents, but some negligence is assigned: it should not have occurred. The 'should' indicates that redress is required, but the absence of actual intent suggests the ultimate penalty may not be necessary. Each case needs its own evaluation. For example, a father who falls asleep while driving gets into an accident. He is hospitalized and his two young daughters are killed. This could fall under Manslaughter. The man should not have fallen asleep, but these deaths are not the same as the victims of an assassin. Law and justice recognizes a distinction. The key in making the distinction is the intent.
Murder is a state specific crime. How it is adjudicated in each state is its own affair. I don't know the particulars of each state. Our concern is with the concept of CP more than the practice. Even so, I can tell you that many DAs will move a 2nd Degree crime to 1st Degree status if they think it was egregious enough. For example a man catches his wife cheating: he then kills the wife, her lover and their 5 children. This is a crime of passion, but the DA can try it as a 1st Degree case if he wishes.
This is the collectivists (socialism and its mean cousin communism) greatest weakness as it severs the link between individual action and the benefits of those actions. That individuals who did not act, should benefit from the actions of others. This is the reason for the recent implosions of collectivist societies worldwide. Communism at its essence is immoral and unjust. If we do not recognize 'Free Will' and moral responsibility in men, then we are not discussing justice at all.
This does not mean that the state has no role but it does mean that the greater its role the more harm it will eventually do. We, as a society, must balance the harm done by the potential for good.
Well said.
Actually it wasn't a bad assertment. Look at Michael Jackson and OJ. Were those trials equal before the law to, say, the Trial of some druggy off the street?
Even the best systems have a ways to go yet.
You should note the original statement is exhaustive. It is claiming equity before the law doesn't exist: i.e. there is no justice.
Papewaio
08-11-2005, 00:43
I'm thinking of some sort of synthesis of the socialistic and capitalistic models of old.
When I think of socialistic democracies they are there to serve the people. Protect them from having a bad start or minimising the consequences accidents of nature. They are not there to remove the choices or consequences of their choices. The government is more a social protection from others, and like most things prevention is better then cure.
They are there to provide education (an uneducated citizen is not a good thing for a democracy, nor should ones parents wealth determine ones access to education as that is a caste system), health (immunisation), police (these should be independent of any corporation), military (of all things giving ones life for the rest of the society is a very social (not individual) thing to do).
The economy can still be a regulated capitalistic model. Regulated in the sense that if a consumer wants to know what the product is they can find out... the buyer has the ability to access information to remain aware of the consequences of buying the product. That the true cost of producing the item is payed for by the producer & buyer not subsidised by others (pollution in one sense is the rest of society subsidising a business that does not pay for its production clean up).
So if I owe ten dollars and pay back one then I have fulfilled my obligation? Obviously not. Retribution is to return what is owed, not a portion thereof.No, one dollar wouldn't be acceptable to me- but then again, I wouldn't call you repaying a personal loan retribution either. Of course, I couldn't really sue over a matter $10 either so I guess you could rip me off if you wanted. Either way, I don't see where you're going with this. ~:confused:
There is no such thing as 3rd degree murder: note homicide and murder are not the same. Murder requires intent.No such thing? Let's have a look....
PA Criminal Code Title 18, Section 2, Chapter 25, - 2502 "Murder":
(a) Murder of the first degree.-A criminal homicide constitutes murder of the first degree when it is committed by an intentional killing.
(b) Murder of the second degree.-A criminal homicide constitutes murder of the second degree when it is committed while defendant was engaged as a principal or an accomplice in the perpetration of a felony.
(c) Murder of the third degree.-All other kinds of murder shall be murder of the third degree. Murder of the third degree is a felony of the first degree.
I think you're wrong.
Retributive systems operate off of what is owed. To owe a thing is usually tied to a chosen or assumed obligation. A forced contract is not binding for example. Accidents, by definition are unforeseen, unexpected and unwanted events. Cases of manslaughter are accidents, but some negligence is assigned: it should not have occurred. The 'should' indicates that redress is required, but the absence of actual intent suggests the ultimate penalty may not be necessary. Each case needs its own evaluation. For example, a father who falls asleep while driving gets into an accident. He is hospitalized and his two young daughters are killed. This could fall under Manslaughter. The man should not have fallen asleep, but these deaths are not the same as the victims of an assassin. Law and justice recognizes a distinction. The key in making the distinction is the intent.Where's all this coming from? Each case needs its own evaluation? What of equity? Doesn't God, the State, and the universe in general demand equity?
Murder is a state specific crime. How it is adjudicated in each state is its own affair. I don't know the particulars of each state. Our concern is with the concept of CP more than the practice. Even so, I can tell you that many DAs will move a 2nd Degree crime to 1st Degree status if they think it was egregious enough. For example a man catches his wife cheating: he then kills the wife, her lover and their 5 children. This is a crime of passion, but the DA can try it as a 1st Degree case if he wishes.So , do you reject the idea of second degree murderers being ineligible for death?
Because of the direction the thread has gone - I think it is necessary to have some of the posters on this subject refer and define what they think Criminal Justice is:
From reading some of the previous posts - there seems to be some confusion on that point. I posted this earlier - but here it is again.
http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Criminal_justice
Theories
There are several basic theories regarding criminal justice and its relation to individual rights and social control:
Restorative justice assumes that the victim or their heirs or neighbors can be in some way restored to a condition "just as good as" before the criminal incident. Substantially it builds on traditions in common law and tort law that requires all who commit wrong to be penalized. In recent time these penalties that restorative justice advocates have included community service, restitution, and alternatives to imprisonment that keep the offender active in the community, and re-socialized him into society. Some suggest that it is a weak way to punish criminal who must be deterred, these critics are often proponents of
Retributive justice or the "eye for an eye" approach. Assuming that the victim or their heirs or neighbors have the right to do to the offender what was done to the victim. These ideas fuel support for capital punishment for murder, amputation for theft (as in some versions of the sharia).
Psychiatric imprisonment treats crime nominally as illness, and assumes that it can be treated by psychoanalysis, drugs, and other techniques associated with psychiatry and medicine, but in forcible confinement. It is more commonly associated with crime that does not appear to have animal emotion or human economic motives, nor even any clear benefit to the offender, but has idiosyncratic characteristics that make it hard for society to comprehend, thus hard to trust the individual if released into society.
Transformative justice does not assume that there is any reasonable comparison between the lives of victims nor offenders before and after the incident. It discourages such comparisons and measurements, and emphasizes the trust of the society in each member, including trust in the offender not to re-offend, and of the victim (or heirs) not to avenge.
In addition, there are models of criminal justice systems which try to explain how these institutions achieve justice.
The Consensus Model argues that the organizations of a criminal justice system do, or should, cooperate.
The Conflict Model assumes that the organizations of a criminal justice system do, or should, compete.
No, one dollar wouldn't be acceptable to me- but then again, I wouldn't call you repaying a personal loan retribution either. Of course, I couldn't really sue over a matter $10 either so I guess you could rip me off if you wanted. Either way, I don't see where you're going with this. ~:confused:
The point I was making is that justice is tied to equity. This means redress and/or restoration to the original state prior to there being anything owed. This applies to contracts and depts, including owing the state for taking another's life. One cannot restore the life of the murdered, but one can demonstrate a proper redress through a like sacrifice of the guilty.
No such thing? Let's have a look....
PA Criminal Code Title 18, Section 2, Chapter 25, - 2502 "Murder":
(a) Murder of the first degree.-A criminal homicide constitutes murder of the first degree when it is committed by an intentional killing.
(b) Murder of the second degree.-A criminal homicide constitutes murder of the second degree when it is committed while defendant was engaged as a principal or an accomplice in the perpetration of a felony.
(c) Murder of the third degree.-All other kinds of murder shall be murder of the third degree. Murder of the third degree is a felony of the first degree.
I think you're wrong.
I confess, I do not know the penal code of Pennsylvania. The point I was trying to make was that manslaughter and murder are usually considered distinct.
Where's all this coming from? Each case needs its own evaluation? What of equity? Doesn't God, the State, and the universe in general demand equity?
God, the State and the universe in general do demand equity. I think you do to. You expect to be paid for working, you expect contracts to be fulfilled, you expect punishment for wrong action. Of course all cases need evaluation. To determine if something is owed or a wrong committed is an evaluation. To determine the nature of the wrong is also an evaluation. To determine a judgment is to apply an evaluation. Now, to admit that not all killing is the same I think is obvious. My view is CP is a just verdict for murder. My original point was that if a society believes there are acts so heinous that no return to society is possible, it is better, more humane, to kill the guilty than torture through life in prison.
You asked my opinion of various degrees of murder. Degree or similar classification takes the discussion out of the conceptual arena to a practical Jurisprudence. Or at least that is how I took it. In the U.S. States control their own penal code. My position is not dependant on the reality of any jurisprudence. It is focused on the more base notion of justice. Even so, I tried to answer your question.
So , do you reject the idea of second degree murderers being ineligible for death?
I think all murder is eligible for death. Murder typically implies intent.
Because of the direction the thread has gone - I think it is necessary to have some of the posters on this subject refer and define what they think Criminal Justice is:
I believe justice is at its base retributive. This includes restoration.
I confess, I do not know the penal code of Pennsylvania. The point I was trying to make was that manslaughter and murder are usually considered distinct.It's not just PA, I picked it because it's my home state. But, your point is understood. However, my point that equity is not possible or even desirable in all cases is clear.
You asked my opinion of various degrees of murder. Degree or similar classification takes the discussion out of the conceptual arena to a practical Jurisprudence. Or at least that is how I took it. In the U.S. States control their own penal code. My position is not dependant on the reality of any jurisprudence. It is focused on the more base notion of justice. Even so, I tried to answer your question.Indeed, the USA, and by extension its people, controls it's own penal code. We have collectively disregarded the idea of 'life for a life' as a requirement for all cases. The debate remaining is on what crimes are heinous enough that the person perpetrating these acts must be executed. I think they are very few. You would seem to think they are most. Having both laid out our cases, I am content to leave it there. :bow:
. However, my point that equity is not possible or even desirable in all cases is clear.
I disagree. Redress can be given where required.
Indeed, the USA, and by extension its people, controls it's own penal code. We have collectively disregarded the idea of 'life for a life' as a requirement for all cases. The debate remaining is on what crimes are heinous enough that the person perpetrating these acts must be executed. I think they are very few. You would seem to think they are most. Having both laid out our cases, I am content to leave it there. :bow:
Justice is a harsh taskmaster and not all who claim fealty to her are willing to carry out her will. :bow:
sharrukin
08-11-2005, 19:09
Justice is a harsh taskmaster and not all who claim fealty to her are willing to carry out her will. :bow:
Thats pretty good! Can I quote you on that?
I believe justice is at its base retributive. This includes restoration.
That is my belief also about Criminal Justice - Its not about reform but about retribution for your actions.
Thats pretty good! Can I quote you on that?
Sure. ~:)
That is my belief also about Criminal Justice - Its not about reform but about retribution for your actions.
I agree. Punishment as a principle presupposes responsibility. Responsibility indicates a knowledge of right vs. wrong conduct.
Albino Gorilla
08-19-2005, 10:06
I uh just wanted to rez this topic to make a quick point. How is it that we are executing people who may be innocent, yet the BTK killer, who confessed to murdering ten, only got life?
WHAT THE F :furious3:
I uh just wanted to rez this topic to make a quick point. How is it that we are executing people who may be innocent, yet the BTK killer, who confessed to murdering ten, only got life?
WHAT THE F :furious3:
You will have to call Witcha, Kansas and talk to the DA there and ask him why he cut such a deal.
Goofball
08-19-2005, 17:54
You will have to call Witcha, Kansas and talk to the DA there and ask him why he cut such a deal.
From what I could piece together, they could not ask for the death penalty because Kansas did not have capital punishment at the time his crimes were committed.
I may be wrong though. Anybody else know?
From what I could piece together, they could not ask for the death penalty because Kansas did not have capital punishment at the time his crimes were committed.
You would be correct - Kansas did not have the death penalty as law during the time frame of the killings.
I may be wrong though. Anybody else know?
That is the most logical reason for why the DA chose not do pursue the death penalty - and he has stated so in the news.
A rant often deserves a smart hoofed mammal reply. ~D
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.