View Full Version : About Punishment
Soulforged
09-17-2005, 01:51
The criminal law (lexis penalis, i think) has been a heated subject since the appearing of rational society, one position trying to justify it, the others trying to deny that justification, and others that accept it like a "needed evil". The idea of simple and heavenly retribution is long banished in the past, and with rational society it acquired administration and civil order functions. The question has always been: How can the state private the individuals of their inherents freedoms? But i'll amply it even more: How can society justify that privation? Notice that I'm talking about privation of freedom (poenas, punishment in strict sense) and not other means of security. Before i make this post 3 times bigger, let's see your opinions.
Byzantine Prince
09-17-2005, 02:00
Ehhh, read Foucault. :book:
if someone brings morality into this discussion I'm going to puke all over the screen. LMAO!
MY personal opinion:
If you take away another citizen's right to something that is considered basic then you should be punished accordingly. If you murder someone, you will be executed. If you steal something then you have to pay it back 1200%. That's the way it should work. For every two negative numbers that are equal there are two positive numbers that mean exactly the same, therefore negative and positive intermix. ~:cheers:
Alexander the Pretty Good
09-17-2005, 02:26
if someone brings morality into this discussion I'm going to puke all over the screen. LMAO!
I'm sure you've argued this in countless other threads, but I forgot.
Aren't your beliefs "your" morality?
And thus are, by asserting an opinion, bringing morality into this discussion?
Vomit, I say, vomit!
Punishment in the legal since is for one to serve some type of retribution for one's harm to society.
If you think its a outdated principle - well your entitled to your opinion no matter how incorrect it is.
Society must have a way to insure that those who break the laws are made aware of how much society is dissatified with their behavior. The degree of punishment should have some correlation to the crime that the individual committed.
And yes the state or society can deprive someone of their basic freedoms - especially if the behavior of the individual deprived someone of their basic freedoms or property. The basic moral of an eye for an eye still applies to society. (Just to make BP Puke his guts out.)
Kagemusha
09-17-2005, 03:39
Soulforged my friend you are an anarchist.To abolish law is the same thing to abolish society.What i havent ever understood about anarchy is that it will lead to a jungle law not sharing everything but the strongest and most capable would do what they want and others would do what they could.Or could not.
bmolsson
09-17-2005, 03:40
Punishment in the legal since is for one to serve some type of retribution for one's harm to society.
I think that is only a part of the equation. Don't forget that it also is to scare other people to break the laws. That is just as important as the punishment of the offender.
I think that is only a part of the equation. Don't forget that it also is to scare other people to break the laws. That is just as important as the punishment of the offender.
That might be so - but its a side effect of the punishment not a part of the equation in dealing with the person who has committed the crime in my humble opinion.
sharrukin
09-17-2005, 07:44
The idea of simple and heavenly retribution is long banished in the past, and with rational society it acquired administration and civil order functions.
No there are still some of us throwbacks around!
The question has always been: How can the state private the individuals of their inherents freedoms?
There are no inherent rights except those which are created by the state. A man, solitaire and alone on a desert isle has no inherent right to life. Nature recognizes no such thing. He has no right to suitable housing, no right to participate in fair elections, etc. Because the state, tribe, city, nation, global society, or whatever you care to call it is what creates human freedoms, or denies them. They are human constructs not found in nature. The Fox will hunt Rabbits, and no amount of legislative bills passed through the Rabbit Congress will convince the Fox of the inherent Rabbit right to life.
But i'll amply it even more: How can society justify that privation? Notice that I'm talking about privation of freedom (poenas, punishment in strict sense) and not other means of security. Before i make this post 3 times bigger, let's see your opinions.
Society justifies the denial of freedoms in varying circumstances based on its own needs. A state must continue to exist or the rights and freedoms under discussion lose all meaning. Therefore the survival of the state is of greater importance than the freedoms of a single individual. "The Constitution is not a suicide pact." This phrase means that the American (or indeed anyone's) Founding Fathers did not intend the Constitution (or fill in the blank) to prevent our self-defense. The rights and freedoms must not be such as to leave the state helpless before its enemies. This does not give the state carte blanche to act in any way it cares to, but it does mean that freedoms are not absolute. The state must be subject to restraints to prevent abuse and so must individual freedoms be so restrained.
Duke of Gloucester
09-17-2005, 09:45
The justice and penal system can be justified in a number of ways. Firstly it can express the values of a soceity. We believe in rights to life and property etc. and one of the ways in which we are going to express those rights is by setting punishments to those who threaten them. The punishements and crimes will change as a society's values change.
Secondly the chance of detection and punishment can act as deterrent, which benefits society as whole. You could argue that society members are pooling their rights to self-defence and protection of property and authorizing the sate to act on their behalf.
Thirdly it institutionalises revenge and prevents an initial wrong developing into bloody fueds. If someone steals my television, I might feel justified in stealing his car to get my own back. He might feel this is an over-reaction and burn my house down. I might respond by killing a family member and so on.
Fourthly there may be some redemptive element to the justice system, indended to benefit the person being punished. Generally speaking those who break societies rules are not happy people: they may not contribute to society, but they don't really feel its benefits either. With appropriate rehabilitation they may become happy and useful members of society.
Of course it is always a danger that an oppresive society can subvert the penal system and use it as an instrument of subjugation. In fact, I would go so far as to say that there is an element of this in any society. This does not make the idea of a penal system wrong, it just alerts us all to ensure we keep an eye on how it is implemented and challenge it where we perceive oppression and injustice.
Soulforged
09-17-2005, 22:26
Ehhh, read Foucault. :book: I know the thesis of Foucoult over the discipline on societ, in fact.
if someone brings morality into this discussion I'm going to puke all over the screen. LMAO! Yes I agree, though i'll not puke. ~;)
MY personal opinion:
If you take away another citizen's right to something that is considered basic then you should be punished accordingly. If you murder someone, you will be executed. If you steal something then you have to pay it back 1200%. That's the way it should work. For every two negative numbers that are equal there are two positive numbers that mean exactly the same, therefore negative and positive intermix. So you believe in the archaic idea of "eye for an eye", not this is definetily out of the question, today the idea of basic rights of the human being are acceptable (right to live, to be free, to honor, to privacy, etc). The ironic is that they are irrebocable, so to enprison a person you must erase his condition of human being, to me it has not justification, the only case will be in those really dangerous, deranged persons that have lost all reason and can cause real problems, to all the other cases a fine according to the case will be enough.
Punishment in the legal since is for one to serve some type of retribution for one's harm to society. I agree though this says nothing about the privation of freedom (see my short explanation above).
If you think its a outdated principle - well your entitled to your opinion no matter how incorrect it is. Incorrect, how so? Let's see this.
Society must have a way to insure that those who break the laws are made aware of how much society is dissatified with their behavior. The degree of punishment should have some correlation to the crime that the individual committed. This is correct. But nothing of this prooves me wrong. Why private a man from his inherent freedom? You might want to know that many jurists have proposed and actual plan of abolishment of privation of freedom, just as a little data. The individual predates the society, the society then blames the individual for the things that probably the same society caused. So the natural rights of the individual predates all possible social order. The case of the fines will be different one, because the money received is a product of the work done for the society, then it's acceptable to ask for a part of it when society was damaged.
And yes the state or society can deprive someone of their basic freedoms - especially if the behavior of the individual deprived someone of their basic freedoms or property. The basic moral of an eye for an eye still applies to society. (Just to make BP Puke his guts out.) Well i believed that your religious morality will not take an step on ignorance, but this rule is totally archaic, i'll give you the three positions that justificate punishment in doctrine:1- Retribution (the subject has to heal the damage done to society by it's actions, the penalty is the justification in itself, this is the most acceptable position because it treats the person as human as possible) 2- General prevention (this has various reaches, but the principal idea is keeping the irreverent in privation and restitute the confidence of society in law) 3- Special prevention (keep others individuals from taking simialar actions -part of the previous teory- and returning the being to a normal social state, wich means educating him). The last two are totally unacceptable, they treat the human like an instrument and like a "dog" (from the example of Kant in his tale of the "Island" and a quote by Roxin in his book of General Part of the law). So there you've the positions, you were right when you said it was for retribution, but mention the "eye for an eye" is incorrect.
Considering your Anarchist tendancies, Soulforged, I'll make it clear that the following post is going on the assumption that it is within a democratic society where there is a government endowed by the people to carry out judgment, whether it be some kind of judge or some kind of jury: You still seem to have not undestood anarchism, but let's see, I'm asking this from the phylosophy of rights not from the added position to a given society or reality, try to make this as abstract as possible.
I think that punishment should fit the crime. I also think the concept of prisons needs a serious overhaul. Like i've always been saying, crime should fit into two categories: The punishment, at least in Germany where i believe that the more rational canons of justice exists in todays world, fits the crime indeed.
Minor: This would be something like shoplifting, or posession of drugs. Punishments for minor crimes would go on the assumption that you are still capable of being a valuable member of society, and that you can be reformed. There would be prison time, and there would be classes geared towards turning you straight. As well as drug treatment for druggies. So you want to punish the posetion of drugs, you started with the left foot, i believed you were not a moralist, this one goes against your first amendment. The state cannot make assumptions on the person, it only punishes over the basis of actions, so the state cannot tell if you're still valuable, this is a very spreaded misconception, even between politicians that use this an instrument. You're taking the possition of special prevention, many scientists remain in that position, but that makes the previous assumption of the functions of the state and the power it has over the individual, is like hitting your dog with an stick to correct him, as said before the most human teory only considers retribution, not correction. LOL- Druggies- LOL... ~D I never used drugs but again this position is archaic and must be erased from legislatives system right now (this is for another discussion).
Major: Major Crimes, such as Drug Dealing, Rape, Murder, Large-Scale Tax Evasion, and (in an ideal world) government corruption. Punishment for these would go under the assumption that you are not now, nor ever, fit for society. Depending on the crime, the result should be either Life in Prison (possibility of parole for some crimes), or death. In the event that someone is paroled, and commits another Major crime, they ought to be put to death. ufff...the drugs again, this will be solved if they are legislated as it should be. Oh i see now the state decides your fate, :no: sorry GC but while the society is still rational this will never happen. And you support death penalty, the ritual of the pagans who sacrifice the peer to make the Sun rise again... interesting, you might want to know that this comes from morality. You're totally incorrect on this GC, i hope you correct your possition, society cannot decide over the life of another human being, as i said before for the things that probably the same society created, not to talk about that this will be vengeance and not proper retribution.
Soulforged my friend you are an anarchist.To abolish law is the same thing to abolish society.What i havent ever understood about anarchy is that it will lead to a jungle law not sharing everything but the strongest and most capable would do what they want and others would do what they could.Or could not. Abolish law? I never said that, and anarchist don't want to abolish law :wall: .You don't understand anarchy, it seems that you readed only the page provided by GC in anarchocapitalism, that is unfoundable.
No there are still some of us throwbacks around!Yes I've sadly noticed that in this thread. :no:
There are no inherent rights except those which are created by the state. A man, solitaire and alone on a desert isle has no inherent right to life. Nature recognizes no such thing. He has no right to suitable housing, no right to participate in fair elections, etc. Because the state, tribe, city, nation, global society, or whatever you care to call it is what creates human freedoms, or denies them. They are human constructs not found in nature. The Fox will hunt Rabbits, and no amount of legislative bills passed through the Rabbit Congress will convince the Fox of the inherent Rabbit right to life. Wrong the state postdates the human being, so the society recognices older and inherent rights that every positive legislation must respect. A man alone, will not be an human from my conception. Is not nature wich recognices this is the same society that punish humans. You didn't understand me, I'm not talking about positive rights, but natural ones that predate all forms of state.
Society justifies the denial of freedoms in varying circumstances based on its own needs. A state must continue to exist or the rights and freedoms under discussion lose all meaning. Therefore the survival of the state is of greater importance than the freedoms of a single individual. "The Constitution is not a suicide pact." This phrase means that the American (or indeed anyone's) Founding Fathers did not intend the Constitution (or fill in the blank) to prevent our self-defense. The rights and freedoms must not be such as to leave the state helpless before its enemies. This does not give the state carte blanche to act in any way it cares to, but it does mean that freedoms are not absolute. The state must be subject torestraints to prevent abuse and so must individual freedoms be so restrained. You're right but this does not justifies the privation of physical freedom as putting someone in jail. Thouugh i'll never eat that speech of the founding fathers, even more in the USA where one of the amendments clearly states that every american has the right to keep arms.
Duke: I agree only with your two first statements. As far as the third goes you're wrong, revenge is an archaic and irrational conception, the justice is in it's theorical nature impartial and rational, and you're contradicting yourself, first you state it institucionalices revenge and then you say it prevents revenge. The fourth is totally unacceptable the society and for instance the state, cannot take a higher moral ground and treat the person like an instrument or like a puppet. And finally you misunderstood me, I'm not trying to abolish the penal system, just the privation of freedom (not to talk about death penalty), the penal system still gives form to the actions that are disvaloured by society. And yes that subjugating effect of penal law is happening right now here. Sometimes the people forget that the penal law is subsidiary and final resource, because it's consecuences are very difficult to justify or accept, I'll say that many of the posters here forgot that.
This is correct. But nothing of this prooves me wrong. Why private a man from his inherent freedom? You might want to know that many jurists have proposed and actual plan of abolishment of privation of freedom, just as a little data. The individual predates the society, the society then blames the individual for the things that probably the same society caused. So the natural rights of the individual predates all possible social order. The case of the fines will be different one, because the money received is a product of the work done for the society, then it's acceptable to ask for a part of it when society was damaged.
Man's only inherent freedom is to breath - everything else must be earned. One does not get to eat in nature unless one goes out and work for it. If someone breaks a law which govern's society - the society has the ability to remove that individual from society either for a short period of time, or for an indefinite time.
Now if you wanting to bring morals into the scope of the discussion then we can talk about inherent freedoms - because that term necessates a discussion on moral and ethics.
However in the case of law - spefic punishments can be dealt out based upon the popular will of society. If the criminal elects to violated the law and is proven guilty - then society has the ability to ask for retribution for the transgression. For instance if the crime is murder - the individual accused and then convicted of said crime has deprived another individual of his inherent right to breath. What is a suitable punishment for the person convicted of denying another of his basic right to draw breath? Make that individual pay a fine? How much will this fine be? Should the criminal be expected to provide for the family of the individual he murdered for the length of life? (Not against that possiblity but it is another form of privation of freedom.) If an individual commits a crime and his convicted of said crime - the individual gets to suffer the retribution of the society for his acts.
I find the arguement that depriving a convicted criminal of his freedom after he has deprived others of their freedom - a little hypocritical.
Well i believed that your religious morality will not take an step on ignorance, but this rule is totally archaic, i'll give you the three positions that justificate punishment in doctrine:1- Retribution (the subject has to heal the damage done to society by it's actions, the penalty is the justification in itself, this is the most acceptable position because it treats the person as human as possible) 2- General prevention (this has various reaches, but the principal idea is keeping the irreverent in privation and restitute the confidence of society in law) 3- Special prevention (keep others individuals from taking simialar actions -part of the previous teory- and returning the being to a normal social state, wich means educating him). The last two are totally unacceptable, they treat the human like an instrument and like a "dog" (from the example of Kant in his tale of the "Island" and a quote by Roxin in his book of General Part of the law). So there you've the positions, you were right when you said it was for retribution, but mention the "eye for an eye" is incorrect.
Again you would be slightly off - the moral comment was to make BP puke because of his statements. The trail process to convict law breakers is all about upholding the morals and ethics of the society which are the foundations of the law of that society - not necessarily ones based upon religion but the morals of the society at large. Murder is more then a religious moral violation - its the moral violation of another human beings right to breath.
Punishment is all about retribution - Prevention is a side effect of the punishment. Depriving individuals of freedoms granted by society is well within the possiblities of society.
Now if you want to discuss inherient rights of man - you have to be willing to go beyond the right to breath - since all others rights are ones granted by society - or a higher power then the individual.
Soulforged
09-18-2005, 04:42
Man's only inherent freedom is to breath - everything else must be earned. One does not get to eat in nature unless one goes out and work for it. If someone breaks a law which govern's society - the society has the ability to remove that individual from society either for a short period of time, or for an indefinite time. This is incorrect every guarantee on all the legislations of western society at least base all it's assumptions on those inherent natural rights that i mentioned, to be justice the positive right or law must ajust to those. And that the society has the ability is sure thing, but is it justified?
Now if you wanting to bring morals into the scope of the discussion then we can talk about inherent freedoms - because that term necessates a discussion on moral and ethics. It will be partially moral Red, but I want more the introduction of phylosophy that morals, wich i particualrily dislike, though i cannot deny their influence on human thinking.
However in the case of law - spefic punishments can be dealt out based upon the popular will of society. If the criminal elects to violated the law and is proven guilty - then society has the ability to ask for retribution for the transgression. For instance if the crime is murder - the individual accused and then convicted of said crime has deprived another individual of his inherent right to breath. What is a suitable punishment for the person convicted of denying another of his basic right to draw breath? Make that individual pay a fine? How much will this fine be? Should the criminal be expected to provide for the family of the individual he murdered for the length of life? (Not against that possiblity but it is another form of privation of freedom.) If an individual commits a crime and his convicted of said crime - the individual gets to suffer the retribution of the society for his acts. I totally agree, but I don't see why it has to be privation of freedom. If you ask me: Could it be just a fine? Yes, or also a debt if he has to provide it.
I find the arguement that depriving a convicted criminal of his freedom after he has deprived others of their freedom - a little hypocritical. Why? The state never has formally atributed itself the ability to judge the way a man carries his life (well in previous times yes), so the state judges only actions now, that's one of the principal reasons why the state cannot look at the causes that lead the man to murder or rape. But again this is a question of phylosophy, and looking at it from the phylosophy i think that the legislative system should change all it's penal background to fit the rights of the human being.
Again you would be slightly off - the moral comment was to make BP puke because of his statements. The trail process to convict law breakers is all about upholding the morals and ethics of the society which are the foundations of the law of that society - not necessarily ones based upon religion but the morals of the society at large. Murder is more then a religious moral violation - its the moral violation of another human beings right to breath. Yes but the one that condems is the state, the subject could be accepted if the society convicted, but even there it's discussable for the same reasons that i gave already.
Punishment is all about retribution - Prevention is a side effect of the punishment. Depriving individuals of freedoms granted by society is well within the possiblities of society. I totally agree with this, but some authors and members here believe that prevention is the justification, that's the basis of all penal system.
Now if you want to discuss inherient rights of man - you have to be willing to go beyond the right to breath - since all others rights are ones granted by society - or a higher power then the individual. No, the society recognises those rights but the rights exists on the human for his quality of human, a construct of the human being cannot become the Leviatan and ignore those qualities. So those rights exists before the society, society only recognises them, though that might not seem so truth in the case of privation of freedom, and the circle closes again.
master of the puppets
09-18-2005, 04:50
i belive that the only true crime is thievery. every crime is theivery. killing someone is robbing them of life, rape is the loss of innocence, vandalization is to take somethings beauty. if it can be attributed to a loss of something then it is a true crime.
Soulforged
09-18-2005, 04:56
i belive that the only true crime is thievery. every crime is theivery. killing someone is robbing them of life, rape is the loss of innocence, vandalization is to take somethings beauty. if it can be attributed to a loss of something then it is a true crime. So from your logic all crimes are degrees of thievery. ~:confused: And how will you justify the tentative from your position? :duel:
bmolsson
09-18-2005, 05:21
Punishment is all about retribution - Prevention is a side effect of the punishment. Depriving individuals of freedoms granted by society is well within the possiblities of society.
The society couldn't care less on retribution. Any damages to a victim or the state are always second to the actual punishment. The punishment itself doesn't really mean something for the society, society doesn't understand revenge.
You can divide in punishment in 3 categories:
1. Prevention (thanks for the word, by the way :bow: ).
A law is there for a reason. The punishment for breaking this law should be so costly that it prevents people breaking it. Very much like military balance actually.
2. Protection.
Some crimes require the society to be protected from the individual, therefore the punishment has to remove the individual from the society, hence protecting it from his actions.
3. Retribution
This is the moral part. Some would argue that "re-education" is better than revenge. I believe that this portion is always the one that is under hefty discussions. Bottomline is that you want to satisfy the victim and teach the criminal, in what ever order that works for you. For the society itself it's irrelevant as long as 1 and 2 are fulfilled.
I think that its important to identify the society here. Its a powerstructure with the purpose to organise and standardize a group of individuals. The main objectives of the society are more important than the individuals and therefore there are many times disagreements which has to be enforced.
Strike For The South
09-18-2005, 05:23
I belive morality should be brought in there is a big difference if some one runs out in front of your car or you made a desicon to run him down or shot in defense or kill him in cold blood or even thriver has different areas crime unfrotuantly is not black and white and the person has to be aken into account not just the crime
Soulforged
09-18-2005, 07:13
You can divide in punishment in 3 categories: Hey I already gave the three possible justifications :mean:
1. Prevention (thanks for the word, by the way :bow: ).
A law is there for a reason. The punishment for breaking this law should be so costly that it prevents people breaking it. Very much like military balance actually. This is correct, an many eminent jurists defend this possition, but I prefer retribution for the reasons i just gave.
2. Protection.
Some crimes require the society to be protected from the individual, therefore the punishment has to remove the individual from the society, hence protecting it from his actions. Well the second possition is called special prevention, and it's about protecting and re-educating.
3. Retribution
This is the moral part. Some would argue that "re-education" is better than revenge. I believe that this portion is always the one that is under hefty discussions. Bottomline is that you want to satisfy the victim and teach the criminal, in what ever order that works for you. For the society itself it's irrelevant as long as 1 and 2 are fulfilled. You're wrong it has little to do with morals, it has to do a lot with debts, like when you adquire a monetary debt with other. And the second part is specially wrong, retribution has nothing to do with re-education, the defenders always argue: "stay in prison and go out" nothing of education. The education as said is on the second relative teory, the special prevention, wich treats the person like a puppet. It matters very little what people thinks, penal law has a dogma, wich should be respected, those first two positions go beyond that dogma entering criminology or politics.
I think that its important to identify the society here. Its a powerstructure with the purpose to organise and standardize a group of individuals. The main objectives of the society are more important than the individuals and therefore there are many times disagreements which has to be enforced. This is another misconception. In fact the individual is just as impostant as the society, that's why he has guarantees and inherent rights.
sharrukin
09-18-2005, 07:39
Wrong the state postdates the human being, so the society recognices older and inherent rights that every positive legislation must respect. A man alone, will not be an human from my conception. Is not nature wich recognices this is the same society that punish humans. You didn't understand me, I'm not talking about positive rights, but natural ones that predate all forms of state.
I understood you perfectly well.
I am talking about natural rights as well and I am saying there is no such thing! Men do not have natural rights. They have rights that are derived from the mind of man and laid down in charters, law and constitutions. What do you mean when you say the "state"? If you mean organized human society then the state predates Homo Sapiens as our pre-human ancestors had organized society.
You're right but this does not justifies the privation of physical freedom as putting someone in jail. Thouugh i'll never eat that speech of the founding fathers, even more in the USA where one of the amendments clearly states that every american has the right to keep arms.
Actually it does. The state is required to protect its citizenry from all enemies foreign and domestic. It has the right and duty to take the lives of soldiers in an attacking army and it has the same right and duty regarding those who would attack its citizens domestically. If it fails to do this basic function it begins to lose legitimacy in the eyes of its own citizens. A part of that function of defence is the prevention of violence and abuse from other citizens. The actual punishment is a separate question as to how to accomplish that end.
Every American DOES have the right to keep arms until the American state decides that they do not. It is in their constitution and not in other constitutions. Again there are no natural rights!
This is incorrect every guarantee on all the legislations of western society at least base all it's assumptions on those inherent natural rights that i mentioned, to be justice the positive right or law must ajust to those. And that the society has the ability is sure thing, but is it justified?
Yep I know but both you and BP did not want to discuss morals - inherient rights come from morals and ethics. Your only natural right is the ability to breath air.
It will be partially moral Red, but I want more the introduction of phylosophy that morals, wich i particualrily dislike, though i cannot deny their influence on human thinking.
Then we can not have an accurate conservation about justice and punishment since morals are interwoven into the concept of both.
I totally agree, but I don't see why it has to be privation of freedom. If you ask me: Could it be just a fine? Yes, or also a debt if he has to provide it.
Justice must have an equalizing effect - or its not justice. If you deny someone the right to breath - its within societies purview to deny you the right to breath and/or to deprive you of other freedoms.
Why? The state never has formally atributed itself the ability to judge the way a man carries his life (well in previous times yes), so the state judges only actions now, that's one of the principal reasons why the state cannot look at the causes that lead the man to murder or rape. But again this is a question of phylosophy, and looking at it from the phylosophy i think that the legislative system should change all it's penal background to fit the rights of the human being.
Again you want to discuss rights of the human being without discussing morals - Rights are something that is given to the people by the government. Without the desire to discuss morals - we can not discuss inherient rights.
The judge and/or jury can only consider the actions in deciding guilt. Punishment can use midigation and extenutating (SP) circumstances in considering what punishment the individual must do to provide retribution for their crime.
Yes but the one that condems is the state, the subject could be accepted if the society convicted, but even there it's discussable for the same reasons that i gave already.
The state is the mouthpiece of the society.
I totally agree with this, but some authors and members here believe that prevention is the justification, that's the basis of all penal system.
Then they would be incorrect
No, the society recognises those rights but the rights exists on the human for his quality of human, a construct of the human being cannot become the Leviatan and ignore those qualities. So those rights exists before the society, society only recognises them, though that might not seem so truth in the case of privation of freedom, and the circle closes again.
Then I would have to say you have a different philosophy then I - rights are not something that are just there. Any discussion of rights entails a discussion of morals, and ethics of the society. You don't have to believe in a high power to discuss rights - since its society that often grants the same rights through the morals and ethics of that society. However when man was alone by himself in the pre-history of time - the only right he had was the ability to breath air. Everything else he had to earn in his struggle for survival.
The society couldn't care less on retribution. Any damages to a victim or the state are always second to the actual punishment. The punishment itself doesn't really mean something for the society, society doesn't understand revenge.
Again you would be incorrect all one has to do is look at the definitions
1 : RECOMPENSE, REWARD
2 : the dispensing or receiving of reward or punishment especially in the hereafter
3 : something given or exacted in recompense; especially : PUNISHMENT
1 : the act of punishing
2 a : suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution b : a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure
3 : severe, rough, or disastrous treatment
So in essence punishment is indeed primarily about retibution by its definition.
You can divide in punishment in 3 categories:
1. Prevention (thanks for the word, by the way :bow: ).
A law is there for a reason. The punishment for breaking this law should be so costly that it prevents people breaking it. Very much like military balance actually.
2. Protection.
Some crimes require the society to be protected from the individual, therefore the punishment has to remove the individual from the society, hence protecting it from his actions.
These are not punishment catergories - these are side-effects of punishment in the justice system.
3. Retribution
This is the moral part. Some would argue that "re-education" is better than revenge. I believe that this portion is always the one that is under hefty discussions. Bottomline is that you want to satisfy the victim and teach the criminal, in what ever order that works for you. For the society itself it's irrelevant as long as 1 and 2 are fulfilled.
I think that its important to identify the society here. Its a powerstructure with the purpose to organise and standardize a group of individuals. The main objectives of the society are more important than the individuals and therefore there are many times disagreements which has to be enforced.
You are correct retribution does contain morals - morals are very much intertwined (SP) with justice and punishment. The desire not to discuss morals leaves most arguements about punishment only half complete.
A.Saturnus
09-18-2005, 17:30
The justification of punishment is its function. It is acceptable for society to punish the individual if this serves the common good. A requirement is that it happens within the law.
Whether society is the cause for the individual to act against the law is only of secundary importance. Whatever the causes were for the crime, what matters is the danger presented by the individual and the act of lawbreaking. Imprisonment is chosen as a useful means of punishment for some crimes.
Papewaio
09-19-2005, 02:09
So you believe in the archaic idea of "eye for an eye", not this is definetily out of the question, today the idea of basic rights of the human being are acceptable (right to live, to be free, to honor, to privacy, etc). The ironic is that they are irrebocable, so to enprison a person you must erase his condition of human being, to me it has not justification, the only case will be in those really dangerous, deranged persons that have lost all reason and can cause real problems, to all the other cases a fine according to the case will be enough.
So you think the best way to apply the law is to use a capitalisitic system... afterall how would you fine someone in an anarchistic system?
Soulforged
09-19-2005, 03:36
So you think the best way to apply the law is to use a capitalisitic system... afterall how would you fine someone in an anarchistic system? So? I'm talking in abstract, I'm not adding it to any society in particular. In any case is just an option. Other options that have been reviewed seriously by scientists is erase all appliable penal law, and use civil law only.
Then we can not have an accurate conservation about justice and punishment since morals are interwoven into the concept of both. You're wrong phylosophy is enough. The natural rights comes from the escense of humanity and not for morality that's just another human mental construct, so it can be separated with out much problem.
Justice must have an equalizing effect - or its not justice. If you deny someone the right to breath - its within societies purview to deny you the right to breath and/or to deprive you of other freedoms.Let me ask you a question Red, I'm always curious about everything but one thing still amuses me, the death penalty. Do you, as Texan, support it? You seem to like very much the policy of an eye for an eye, though it has no real use in a real just system (with this I'm presumming, yes, that your legal system is not just)
Again you want to discuss rights of the human being without discussing morals - Rights are something that is given to the people by the government. Without the desire to discuss morals - we can not discuss inherient rights. And I say to you again what i said to sharruking. Those rights don't surge from laws, this rights surge from the very escense of humanity recognised lately by the law, and the law must adjust to them.
The state is the mouthpiece of the society. That's a very conservative view. In reality the state acts like an impartial party, in judicial system it doesn't represent anybody, of course in your system, it's different for the inclusion of juries. But it has no difference in the basis of my arguments, and also considering that it's all formal nothing real.
Then they would be incorrect Well then you'll be solving the problem of centuries. ~;)
Then I would have to say you have a different philosophy then I - rights are not something that are just there. Any discussion of rights entails a discussion of morals, and ethics of the society. You don't have to believe in a high power to discuss rights - since its society that often grants the same rights through the morals and ethics of that society. However when man was alone by himself in the pre-history of time - the only right he had was the ability to breath air. Everything else he had to earn in his struggle for survival. Well breathing will not be a right, but let's see. I think that you're confusing my concepts. Some rights are considered imperferct (this kind of conceptions are used mostly in civil and international law), thus when some event takes place (let's say in the case of the person: "born alive") then it becomes a positive perfect right, with this rights i'm talking about happens something of the same. Society does not contract with the "Leviatan" it asks for the recognition of those ancestral rights like guarantee for the protection of the individual and humanity in general. What I'm saying is: if you recognice this then you cannot negate it without calling the person a non human person, because those rights are escensial and irrebocables to the person, there's no turning back.
bmolsson
09-19-2005, 05:18
These are not punishment catergories - these are side-effects of punishment in the justice system.
I think that we have different opinions on why we have a justice system, no surprise there though.
Also I think I misunderstood the discussion. If its only about how sever the punishement as retribution should be, I really have nothing to add. :bow:
Soulforged
09-19-2005, 06:02
I think that we have different opinions on why we have a justice system, no surprise there though.
Also I think I misunderstood the discussion. If its only about how sever the punishement as retribution should be, I really have nothing to add. :bow: No it's about justification, and you just added some info. ~:cheers:
I understood you perfectly well.
I am talking about natural rights as well and I am saying there is no such thing! Men do not have natural rights. They have rights that are derived from the mind of man and laid down in charters, law and constitutions. What do you mean when you say the "state"? If you mean organized human society then the state predates Homo Sapiens as our pre-human ancestors had organized society. Now i understand you. When i talk about natural rights I talk about equality, it borns with the man and it's recogniced (very recently really) by the society. And state is that imposing force that takes the monopoly of cohercion and dominion over a territory. But yes I was refering to society in general. What I say is that those rights come from the escense of human, from our qualities.
Actually it does. The state is required to protect its citizenry from all enemies foreign and domestic. It has the right and duty to take the lives of soldiers in an attacking army and it has the same right and duty regarding those who would attack its citizens domestically. If it fails to do this basic function it begins to lose legitimacy in the eyes of its own citizens. A part of that function of defence is the prevention of violence and abuse from other citizens. The actual punishment is a separate question as to how to accomplish that end. You see, this doesn't justify it also. The problem here is dogma, what the people thinks about the "criminal" on the streets is another problem, is acceptable too, but I'm trying to focus on the freedom of every person. That freedom guarenteed in the escense of humanity and violated by the state, though your point is absolutly valid, I disagree, for this matter. The judicial system should not think on the way that the people think they should respect a dogma and keep things just. The prison doesn't makes the man "better" it degrades him, even treating him in the most human way, just to enprison him is enough to private him from his inherent humanity.
sharrukin
09-19-2005, 10:27
You see, this doesn't justify it also. The problem here is dogma, what the people thinks about the "criminal" on the streets is another problem, is acceptable too, but I'm trying to focus on the freedom of every person. That freedom guarenteed in the escense of humanity and violated by the state, though your point is absolutly valid, I disagree, for this matter. The judicial system should not think on the way that the people think they should respect a dogma and keep things just. The prison doesn't makes the man "better" it degrades him, even treating him in the most human way, just to enprison him is enough to private him from his inherent humanity.
Society is a large gathering of people in organized groups. You cannot say that what people think and what they want has no validity because people are the state. The Aztecs thought that carving someones heart out and offering it to the gods was a pretty cool way to treat prisoners. What people think has a huge impact on what becomes justice within a society. There is no objective scientific definition of justice or right and wrong. Justice is what people see as the proper retribution for a moral wrong. Under Aztec law cutting someones heart out can be the legally correct action! Now you can argue Morality if you choose but you cannot divorce morality and justice. The judicial system MUST consider what people think or it isn't justice.
When you say the essence of humanity what are you talking about? What essence? What inherent humanity? How are men equal? A moral code is the only thing that gives man value above that of a beast. You seem to shy away from morality in a way that I do not really understand.
You're wrong phylosophy is enough. The natural rights comes from the escense of humanity and not for morality that's just another human mental construct, so it can be separated with out much problem.
Again would you care to wage a bet on it? Thomas Jefferson's famous quote in the Declaration of Independence is shows where natural rights come from. Morality is indeed a human mental construct and it serves as the main source of laws for the legal system and justice. Let me ask you - are you using this philosophy for Natural Rights of Man.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/rightsof.htm
One must be careful - again these are just words and rights granted to man by man - nothing inherient in them at all.
Or are you using Thomas Paine's Rights of Man.
http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/1776-1800/paine/ROM/rofm04.htm
Let me ask you a question Red, I'm always curious about everything but one thing still amuses me, the death penalty. Do you, as Texan, support it? You seem to like very much the policy of an eye for an eye, though it has no real use in a real just system (with this I'm presumming, yes, that your legal system is not just)
I support the death penalty to be used in only the most extreme cases, and where the evidence is conclusive of the guilt of the individual accused. The Texas Death Penatly is to loosely applied in my opinion. Mass Murders, rapist who then murder their victim, and child molestors who kill the innocent child. These individuals have deprived people of their right to life, and society should reserve the right to deprive them of thier freedom and their life.
And frankly the eye for an eye concept of punishment works very well for me. If you deprive someone of their life - you suffer the consequences of that decision. If you steal from someone - then society gets to deprive you of something - freedom for a period of time in this case. I don't take the concept of eye for an eye literially - but figuretively.
And I say to you again what i said to sharruking. Those rights don't surge from laws, this rights surge from the very escense of humanity recognised lately by the law, and the law must adjust to them.
Law adjusts to society because society for the most part causes most laws to be legislative into being. A few laws are based soley on morals and society accepts those laws as just and right - rights come from the society not the law. The law enforces the rights that society has bestowed upon themselves.
Now if you which to discuss inherient rights correctly - I will use both the French Revolution declaration of the RIghts of Man and Thomas Jefferson's concept as described in the American Declartion of Independence. Both follow the same concept of a creator granting certain rights to man.
Soulforged
09-20-2005, 00:58
Society is a large gathering of people in organized groups. You cannot say that what people think and what they want has no validity because people are the state. The Aztecs thought that carving someones heart out and offering it to the gods was a pretty cool way to treat prisoners. What people think has a huge impact on what becomes justice within a society. There is no objective scientific definition of justice or right and wrong. Justice is what people see as the proper retribution for a moral wrong. Under Aztec law cutting someones heart out can be the legally correct action! Now you can argue Morality if you choose but you cannot divorce morality and justice. The judicial system MUST consider what people think or it isn't justice. Wrong, the penal law has little to do with morality, even more on developed nations, and I'm talking about penal law.
When you say the essence of humanity what are you talking about? What essence? What inherent humanity? How are men equal? A moral code is the only thing that gives man value above that of a beast. You seem to shy away from morality in a way that I do not really understand. The essence is by it's definition the nature of the human. If we look at the human then we'll know that he's free, he has a life, and so on... and maybe i used wrong the words it's "equity" it means that all humans are equal before the law and equal in rights just for being human, thing that's denied to the privated of his freedom.
Again would you care to wage a bet on it? Thomas Jefferson's famous quote in the Declaration of Independence is shows where natural rights come from. Morality is indeed a human mental construct and it serves as the main source of laws for the legal system and justice. Let me ask you - are you using this philosophy for Natural Rights of Man. And again i say you (though I'm talking about law doctrine) that this is the recognition of society of things that predate it.
One must be careful - again these are just words and rights granted to man by man - nothing inherient in them at all.
Or are you using Thomas Paine's Rights of Man. I don't know about him. But again i agree they're given to man by man, when the humanity revels itself inside on the person and the other sees how the person is, he recognises it's nature. I'll read what you posted because I'm interested, but mean while I'll have to say to you, that this discussion has no point, because the society and the state recognises those rights to the individuals, so it doesn't matter if they're inherent or predate (though i believe it) society because they're irrebocable once given.
I support the death penalty to be used in only the most extreme cases, and where the evidence is conclusive of the guilt of the individual accused. The Texas Death Penatly is to loosely applied in my opinion. Mass Murders, rapist who then murder their victim, and child molestors who kill the innocent child. These individuals have deprived people of their right to life, and society should reserve the right to deprive them of thier freedom and their life. Well I totally disagree with this, because the state cannot decide over the person life. But even looking at it with your logic. When the person is surely guilty?
And frankly the eye for an eye concept of punishment works very well for me. If you deprive someone of their life - you suffer the consequences of that decision. If you steal from someone - then society gets to deprive you of something - freedom for a period of time in this case. I don't take the concept of eye for an eye literially - but figuretively. And if you take it figuretively then why is that privation is not enough for you in many cases? Also the eye for an eye concept is barbaric, wheter it's took literally or figuretively. As Ghandi said: "...it leaves us all blinds."
Law adjusts to society because society for the most part causes most laws to be legislative into being. A few laws are based soley on morals and society accepts those laws as just and right - rights come from the society not the law. The law enforces the rights that society has bestowed upon themselves. I agree, but this doesn't proove me wrong, even more when it's the state that privates and kills (in your case).
Now if you which to discuss inherient rights correctly - I will use both the French Revolution declaration of the RIghts of Man and Thomas Jefferson's concept as described in the American Declartion of Independence. Both follow the same concept of a creator granting certain rights to man. So for you a declaration (that has power of law) creates rights? You're contradicting yourself.
The essence is by it's definition the nature of the human. If we look at the human then we'll know that he's free, he has a life, and so on... and maybe i used wrong the words it's "equity" it means that all humans are equal before the law and equal in rights just for being human, thing that's denied to the privated of his freedom.
As long as society treats all law breakers equally then all human rights are being honored. (Notice how I structured this sentence - I am trying to make a point about how your arguement seems to me.)
And again i say you (though I'm talking about law doctrine) that this is the recognition of society of things that predate it.
Before a structured society man had no rights - it was the law of survival. If man could not fend for himself he died. Society is what allows man to have rights - from whatever concept man wishes to express his society values and morals.
I don't know about him. But again i agree they're given to man by man, when the humanity revels itself inside on the person and the other sees how the person is, he recognises it's nature. I'll read what you posted because I'm interested, but mean while I'll have to say to you, that this discussion has no point, because the society and the state recognises those rights to the individuals, so it doesn't matter if they're inherent or predate (though i believe it) society because they're irrebocable once given.
I suggest you read the link provided on Thomas Paine's Rights of Man it will help you understand a little where I am coming from - that and Thomas Jefferson's views on rights. The discussion of rights is important because of the concept of punishment in which you are expousing. If man has a right to privacy and freedom - then society must also have the right to punish an individual who breaks the law. This punishment must equal the crime that was committed so that society has its retribution from the criminal for his actions. If one takes a life - and is found guilty then society must have the ability to punish the man equal to the crime that he committed.
Well I totally disagree with this, because the state cannot decide over the person life. But even looking at it with your logic. When the person is surely guilty? And if you take it figuretively then why is that privation is not enough for you in many cases?
Denying a man his freedom is more then acceptable for me in most cases involving murder - I listed the expections to this rule. If a man commits murder in the heat of the moment - then his punishment should just be term in jail. If he committs many murders for his sole enjoyment - then that individual should receive the death pently.
Also the eye for an eye concept is barbaric, wheter it's took literally or figuretively. As Ghandi said: "...it leaves us all blinds."
The eye for an eye concept however happens to be what most of the worlds penal system is indeed based upon. If you committ a crime society has the right to punish you for your actions. The amount of retribution demanded by society is based upon the actions of the criminal.
I agree, but this doesn't proove me wrong, even more when it's the state that privates and kills (in your case).
IT wasn't meet to prove you wrong - its an explantion of how I see society and the way criminals are punished based upon the law.
So for you a declaration (that has power of law) creates rights? You're contradicting yourself.
Not at all - the Declaration of Independence is a document that explains a philosophy. Just like Rights of Man by Thomas Paine or the French Revolutions declaration. They describe what rights society will grant the individual based upon a supreme being. I strongly suggest you read both documents - links have been provided in the previous post - to fully understand where I am coming from.
Edit: You just might like Thomas Paine's work also - since if I remember it correctly its leaning more into the direction I believe you are trying to state. The good thing about this discussion is that I remembered parts of the work - but am going to have to get a new copy of both Rights of Man and Common Sense
Soulforged
09-20-2005, 06:27
As long as society treats all law breakers equally then all human rights are being honored. (Notice how I structured this sentence - I am trying to make a point about how your arguement seems to me.)Well my point is that they're not treated equally.
Before a structured society man had no rights - it was the law of survival. If man could not fend for himself he died. Society is what allows man to have rights - from whatever concept man wishes to express his society values and morals. Ok but again, the rights exists before and society recognices tha major "legislation" predating itself and then gives it form.
I suggest you read the link provided on Thomas Paine's Rights of Man it will help you understand a little where I am coming from - that and Thomas Jefferson's views on rights. The discussion of rights is important because of the concept of punishment in which you are expousing. If man has a right to privacy and freedom - then society must also have the right to punish an individual who breaks the law. This punishment must equal the crime that was committed so that society has its retribution from the criminal for his actions. If one takes a life - and is found guilty then society must have the ability to punish the man equal to the crime that he committed. Yes but my point is that the state and society recognices those rights as irrebocable from the moment they've form, so it's not turning back, that's when the justification of privation fails, unless that you want to treat the convicted like a non-human, maybe like it was considered in ancient laws: the monks for example were dead in life (they were called civily dead)
Denying a man his freedom is more then acceptable for me in most cases involving murder - I listed the expections to this rule. If a man commits murder in the heat of the moment - then his punishment should just be term in jail. If he committs many murders for his sole enjoyment - then that individual should receive the death pently. Yes it appears acceptable to me too, until i look to the rights that the individual as human person has. But again when is the person absolutely guilty? You'll know that there's no case of absolte certainty on science, and law is not an exception.
The eye for an eye concept however happens to be what most of the worlds penal system is indeed based upon. If you committ a crime society has the right to punish you for your actions. The amount of retribution demanded by society is based upon the actions of the criminal. You're wrong. Retribution is not about the eye for an eye. This requires qualitative equality, while retribution could easily accept fines in most cases, thus considering just quantity and not quality. Besides there're other considerations that're being discussed right now on the dogma that may proove all your position wrong, but not retribution, well really most humanist and jurists have proove you wrong. If I'm not incorrect I think that the only legislative world that accepts death penalty is the common law.
Well my point is that they're not treated equally.
Again the concept is equality is it not?
Ok but again, the rights exists before and society recognices tha major "legislation" predating itself and then gives it form.
What right existed before society granted rights to the individual? Man before society was faced with a harsh day to day survival of the fittest - no rights are existing in that stage of development.
Yes but my point is that the state and society recognices those rights as irrebocable from the moment they've form, so it's not turning back, that's when the justification of privation fails, unless that you want to treat the convicted like a non-human, maybe like it was considered in ancient laws: the monks for example were dead in life (they were called civily dead)
Society has establish the counter to this with law. When the individual violates the law and deprives someone else of thier rights the society has determined through law that the criminal can have his rights revoked until he has finished the punishment imposed on him by society. Criminals by their actions and then conviction have placed themselves outside of society.
Yes it appears acceptable to me too, until i look to the rights that the individual as human person has. But again when is the person absolutely guilty? You'll know that there's no case of absolte certainty on science, and law is not an exception.
Convicted is all that is required.
You're wrong. Retribution is not about the eye for an eye. This requires qualitative equality, while retribution could easily accept fines in most cases, thus considering just quantity and not quality. Besides there're other considerations that're being discussed right now on the dogma that may proove all your position wrong, but not retribution, well really most humanist and jurists have proove you wrong. If I'm not incorrect I think that the only legislative world that accepts death penalty is the common law.
Again check out the defination of retribution and the concept of an eye for an eye. I already stated that I use the concept as a figure of speech. Attempting to apply an eye for an eye concept literially would not be feasible. The eye for an eye concept implies that if you do X you recieve a coorsponding Y in punishment in retribution for you committing the crime of X.
Soulforged
09-20-2005, 07:21
Again the concept is equality is it not? Yes though it's better to name it equity.
What right existed before society granted rights to the individual? Man before society was faced with a harsh day to day survival of the fittest - no rights are existing in that stage of development. Again those rights are imperfect, not even material, but the society recognises them looking at the essence of humanity. In the first link it says it very well, and also sais they're imprescriptible, ok, is not the same as irrebocable, wich i deduct for the doctrine that interprets certain codes, but still this will be against death penalty, because the right to live is imprescriptible and the state cannot determine it's prescription. Yes I readed the first, but you'll have to wait for the second. ~:)
Society has establish the counter to this with law. When the individual violates the law and deprives someone else of thier rights the society has determined through law that the criminal can have his rights revoked until he has finished the punishment imposed on him by society. Criminals by their actions and then conviction have placed themselves outside of society. Yes but again, there must be something that justifies this law. The phylosophy of science applies to the methods of verification, thus in the case of penal law it applies to justification and objective of punishment.
Convicted is all that is required. So you're saying that the court is infalible? Or that the jury is infalible?
Again check out the defination of retribution and the concept of an eye for an eye. I already stated that I use the concept as a figure of speech. Attempting to apply an eye for an eye concept literially would not be feasible. The eye for an eye concept implies that if you do X you recieve a coorsponding Y in punishment in retribution for you committing the crime of X. Oh, i know very well the definition of retribution, but in the dogma it's interpreted a little different that you propose, it just means paying a debt, returning what you "stealed", healing your damage... It allows for more punishment that only privation of freedom, mostly recognicing that there could be errors on this too, and not only in the case of death penalty. And this is just a justification given by doctrine and not the only effect of punishment. Certainly the effects could be all those included in the others justifications (prevention, special and general).
Yes though it's better to name it equity.
Maybe - but its called equality for now
Again those rights are imperfect, not even material, but the society recognises them looking at the essence of humanity. In the first link it says it very well, and also sais they're imprescriptible, ok, is not the same as irrebocable, wich i deduct for the doctrine that interprets certain codes, but still this will be against death penalty, because the right to live is imprescriptible and the state cannot determine it's prescription. Yes I readed the first, but you'll have to wait for the second. ~:)
I don't have a problem at all with saying the death pently is against the rights of man. As long as society determines what it will accept for retribution for an individual denying another his right to life - it must have some equity that is equal to what the convicted criminal has been found guilty of.
Yes but again, there must be something that justifies this law. The phylosophy of science applies to the methods of verification, thus in the case of penal law it applies to justification and objective of punishment.
Agree in part - laws must also have some grounding in the moral code of the society and there must be a method of change that society can impart onto the law.
So you're saying that the court is infalible? Or that the jury is infalible?
Not at all - I am saying that all that is required is an conviction.
Oh, i know very well the definition of retribution, but in the dogma it's interpreted a little different that you propose, it just means paying a debt, returning what you "stealed", healing your damage... It allows for more punishment that only privation of freedom, mostly recognicing that there could be errors on this too, and not only in the case of death penalty. And this is just a justification given by doctrine and not the only effect of punishment. Certainly the effects could be all those included in the others justifications (prevention, special and general).
Yes the effects of punishment can be included in the process of retribution. However that is the process of the legal system beyond punishment. Punishment must have a means of retribution that provides some equity back to society regarding the individuals violation of the law. (now I most likely used equity in the sentence wrong - so the real meaning of the sentence is this - Punishment must have a means of retribution that provides a sense of justice being applied back to the society in general.
Soulforged
09-21-2005, 05:41
I don't have a problem at all with saying the death pently is against the rights of man. As long as society determines what it will accept for retribution for an individual denying another his right to life - it must have some equity that is equal to what the convicted criminal has been found guilty of. Don't you think, as a member of that society, that this change has to start somewhere? Don't you think that it's enough to private the man from his freedom?
Agree in part - laws must also have some grounding in the moral code of the society and there must be a method of change that society can impart onto the law. The moral base is always there. But morality is separeted then from rights. The morality enters all kind of laws, except penal one, because it has to be as abstract as possible.
Not at all - I am saying that all that is required is an conviction. But then. What does the conviction means to you?
Yes the effects of punishment can be included in the process of retribution. However that is the process of the legal system beyond punishment. Punishment must have a means of retribution that provides some equity back to society regarding the individuals violation of the law. (now I most likely used equity in the sentence wrong - so the real meaning of the sentence is this - Punishment must have a means of retribution that provides a sense of justice being applied back to the society in general. I agree. But authors of doctrine, disagree with you. I'm on your position, but many authors are not, they believe in general and special prevention as a way to justify the punishment.
Don't you think, as a member of that society, that this change has to start somewhere? Don't you think that it's enough to private the man from his freedom? For most crimes the answer is yes. However for mass murder, murder after rape, murder after molestion of a child - the death penality should remain an option for the state - to be taken if the circumstances of the crime warrant such a punishment.
The moral base is always there. But morality is separeted then from rights. The morality enters all kind of laws, except penal one, because it has to be as abstract as possible.
Going to have to disagree - morality is intermix into the concept of punishment. Because of the very nature of punishment serving as retribution for the society.
But then. What does the conviction means to you?
Just what it implies - found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
I agree. But authors of doctrine, disagree with you. I'm on your position, but many authors are not, they believe in general and special prevention as a way to justify the punishment.
Then one must conclude that they are trying to justify their theory of punishment being prevention. Or that we are both completely wrong.
Soulforged
09-22-2005, 05:47
For most crimes the answer is yes. However for mass murder, murder after rape, murder after molestion of a child - the death penality should remain an option for the state - to be taken if the circumstances of the crime warrant such a punishment. Well that's your point of view. But looking at it from retribution, I must explain something to you.The teory presumes the returning of the health stealed to society by someone's action, if you kill him, then he cannot return anything, even more you're not recognicing the humanity in him, that to me is more important, and as the principles of the french revolution said they are "imprescriptible".
Going to have to disagree - morality is intermix into the concept of punishment. Because of the very nature of punishment serving as retribution for the society. Again morality has nothing to do with the process, if you want to tell that it has to do with the origin then i agree, but lately it's so separated that in penal law you hardly can see any moral trace. In the process only actions are judged (only the actions that damages others people's rights, not like drugging for example that is atrocious that it's still punishable), the morality, defined as the group of rules that mandate the individual to improve his life, has nothing to do because it will refer to the judged man and not the action performed, where morality is not transmited.
Just what it implies - found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.Ok, but the Court is not all knowing, eventually someone that even don't has any guilt to expire will die.
Then one must conclude that they are trying to justify their theory of punishment being prevention. Or that we are both completely wrong. Or no, not at all. The most accepted possition since Kant, is retribution, because it treats the person as humanly as possible. The main representant of the other position that i know, is Jackobs (both germans), wich treats the person as an instrument. It's curious that death penalty has been used lately (or always?) like an instrument of political issues.
Well that's your point of view. But looking at it from retribution, I must explain something to you.The teory presumes the returning of the health stealed to society by someone's action, if you kill him, then he cannot return anything, even more you're not recognicing the humanity in him, that to me is more important, and as the principles of the french revolution said they are "imprescriptible".
From a retribution point of view you, my take is more correct then you are assuming with your statement here. The death penality is indeed about retribution.
Again morality has nothing to do with the process, if you want to tell that it has to do with the origin then i agree, but lately it's so separated that in penal law you hardly can see any moral trace. In the process only actions are judged (only the actions that damages others people's rights, not like drugging for example that is atrocious that it's still punishable), the morality, defined as the group of rules that mandate the individual to improve his life, has nothing to do because it will refer to the judged man and not the action performed, where morality is not transmited.
We are just going to have to disagree.
Ok, but the Court is not all knowing, eventually someone that even don't has any guilt to expire will die.
Again its beyond a reasonable doubt. That is why the death pently should only be applied to certain crimes involving horrendous acts.
Soulforged
09-22-2005, 06:13
From a retribution point of view you, my take is more correct then you are assuming with your statement here. The death penality is indeed about retribution. Well I should read my books again, but I think taht my deduction is pretty certain.
We are just going to have to disagree.With me and with all the jurists. ~:)
Again its beyond a reasonable doubt. That is why the death pently should only be applied to certain crimes involving horrendous acts. Again, how do you or any one knows it's beyond all reasonable doubts? Even with the problems that there's to justify punishment in this kind of form, you're going further and saying "well yes kill him", in any case life is precious, wheter it's viewed from a religious or an atheist point of view, so it could not be subordinated to the power of the state in any case. A while ago I proposed something to my profesor. Here the death penalty is not allowed under no circumstances, so I asked to him, looking at the subject from retribution's side: "And why we don't let the convicted choose his punishment (time in jail or death)" He then answered me: "No, because I trully believe that the state cannot decide over the life of an human being", to me that was enough, suddenly all the idea of state closed in my mind and I understood how bad will be that decission over the life of another like me.
Again, how do you or any one knows it's beyond all reasonable doubts? Even with the problems that there's to justify punishment in this kind of form, you're going further and saying "well yes kill him", in any case life is precious, wheter it's viewed from a religious or an atheist point of view, so it could not be subordinated to the power of the state in any case. A while ago I proposed something to my profesor. Here the death penalty is not allowed under no circumstances, so I asked to him, looking at the subject from retribution's side: "And why we don't let the convicted choose his punishment (time in jail or death)" He then answered me: "No, because I trully believe that the state cannot decide over the life of an human being", to me that was enough, suddenly all the idea of state closed in my mind and I understood how bad will be that decission over the life of another like me.
Again you will not get me to change my mind about the death penality as a whole. You can get me to agree that its to loosely (SP) applied in the state of Texas - where almost every murder case can recieve a death penality if convicted. However some crimes once the individual is convicted warrant the death penality - mass murder, rape and then murder, rape and then murder of a child - all warrant the death penalty.
[warning an emotional appeal arguement is about to be presented]
Let me ask you this - in your country do you put down rabid dogs?
Why is a mass murder anymore precious then a rabid dog?
Why is a rapist and murder of childern any more precious then the life that he has taken?
[end of emotional appeal]
The individual who committs such crimes has placed himself at the mercy of society - so by virtue of entering the court system for his crime - society gets to judge his actions. Because society gets to judge - it gets to set the punishment for the convicted individual. If society determines that only the most severe punishment is warranted for spefic crimes - then the society has the right through its state appratus to make such a determination.
If the state can not decide over the life of another human being who violates the laws and the rights of others to live - then what can the state decide on? Your professor's answer contained a fallacy and he was using an emotional appeal. And futhermore he was placing a moral into the punishment decision.
bmolsson
09-22-2005, 13:55
If the state can not decide over the life of another human being who violates the laws and the rights of others to live - then what can the state decide on?
Question: How should the state be punished in the case it executes an innocent ?
Question: How should the state be punished in the case it executes an innocent ?
The state should make restitution to the family of the innocent only if the process was shown to be violated by the state. What constitutes a violation of the process by the state - would be the next question. that should be asked.
The Death Penalty should only be used in the most horrendous of crimes - and if the individual is convicted based upon the evidence and the jury or judges (Depending on the trail process) determine that the evidence concludes that the person is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt - the the state has followed its stated due process.
The only time the state could be punished for a wrongful death of an innocent is when the evidence was tainted by the state to insure a guilty verdict. In other words a violation of due process.
Given that the United States in matters of the death penalty must follow an establish court process involving numerous reviews of the case - the possiblity of tainted evidence in modern proceeding standing throughout the process becomes extremely unlikely. If the process is violated by the state - then the courts must overturn the veridict. If an innocent man is executed for a crime that he did not committ - then the state must provide restitution for that man's life.
Will innocent men confess to crimes they did not commit because of the pressure applied by the police to arrest a suspect? Evidence shows that it has been done in the past. Should we remove the death penalty from the prospect of punishment because of the wrongs done by police in the pursuit of a suspect? No I don't think so - the state must insure due process is followed.
Again would you want a rabid dog walking the streets to harm others over and over again? Or would you prefer the state to remove them from causing any harm ever again to society?
Man will kill others in the heat of the moment - and that does not deserve the death penalty in my opinion. A serial killer has gone beyond the concept of killing in the middle of the crime - but has become a killer of men because he or she enjoys the killing of others. It gives them a power over their fellow man. Do these individuals who have stepped outside of the boundries of society deserve futher life when they have denied life to several other human beings? Does not the state have the right to remove such individuals from society in a permant way?
People who molest and then kill their child victims - are another such criminial - should they have the right to enjoy breathing when they have robbed an innocent child of his/her right to live - not in the heat of the moment of another criminal activity - but for the reasons of a sick mind who wished to not only destroy the innocense of a child - but to rob them of thier life to protect themselves from their horrendous crime. Does this individual deserve to live more then the child in which he murdered?
Believing that the state should not take another human being's life is well and good in theory - but sometimes society must destroy those who have become nothing but animals for the protection of society.
Again would you allow the rabid dog to run around on the street - or would you demand that the state put it down for the good of the community?
Adrian II
09-22-2005, 16:25
Given that the United States in matters of the death penalty must follow an establish court process involving numerous reviews of the case - the possiblity of tainted evidence in modern proceeding standing throughout the process becomes extremely unlikely.Yet there have been hundreds of exonerations in the U.S. since 1989. Sixty percent of those cleared by DNA were exonerations for murder. How would you explain that?
The article says that..
.. false convictions are more likely to occur in murder cases, and much more likely in death penalty cases, than in other prosecutions. There are several reasons (apart from the evidence presented here) to believe that this too is almost certainly true: the extraordinary pressure to secure convictions for heinous crimes; the difficulty of investigating many homicides because, by definition, the victims are unavailable; extreme incentives for the real killers to frame innocent fall guys when they are facing the possibility of execution.
Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Vol 95, No 2 (http://www.law.umich.edu/NewsAndInfo/exonerations-in-us.pdf)
Yet there have been hundreds of exonerations in the U.S. since 1989. Sixty percent of those cleared by DNA were exonerations for murder. How would you explain that?
Why should I have to explain it? Am I defending the whole process - not likely? Have I stated that it needs to be reviewed - you might want to read every thing verus just skimming. Did the state make mistakes in prosecution or was the person found guilty because the state hide the evidence of innocence? Your article does not provide those details in the initial read - so more detailed reading would be necessary would it not? Especially from you it would seem
Because of the seriousness of their
consequences, murder convictions—and especially death sentences—
are reviewed more carefully than other criminal convictions.
In 1999, for example, Dennis Fritz was exonerated by
DNA evidence and released from a life sentence for a rape murder
he did not commit. But he was exonerated as a by-product of an
intensive investigation that led to the exoneration of his codefendant,
Ron Williamson, who had been sentenced to death. If
Williamson had not been sentenced to death, Fritz would probably
be in prison to this day
This follows exactly what I stated regrading the death penality.
One should read what is actually written before attempting to get me to explain something that is already clearly evident.
Then I guess you missed this statement also in your desire to attempt to say the death penality is wrong.
Again you will not get me to change my mind about the death penality as a whole. You can get me to agree that its to loosely (SP) applied in the state of Texas - where almost every murder case can recieve a death penality if convicted. However some crimes once the individual is convicted warrant the death penality - mass murder, rape and then murder, rape and then murder of a child - all warrant the death penalty.
Try again Adrian
[now for my emotional appeal to you in response to your attempt]
would you like to live next to Jeffery Dalmer, Ted Bundy, or how about BTK. Or would you like your child exposed to the child rapist and killer?
Adrian II
09-22-2005, 17:12
Why should I have to explain it?Because you wrote that 'the possibility of tainted evidence in modern proceeding standing throughout the process becomes extremely unlikely'. Apparently it doesn't, hence my question. It is just a question, no need to get personal.
:bow:
yesdachi
09-22-2005, 17:30
Because you wrote that 'the possibility of tainted evidence in modern proceeding standing throughout the process becomes extremely unlikely'. Apparently it doesn't, hence my question. It is just a question, no need to get personal.
:bow:
It seems that many exonerated cases were not all that “modern” since they didn’t have things like DNA testing at the time of the convictions. I think Redleg is talking about now modern. :bow:
Edit: good post on #42 Red. :pleased:
Because you wrote that 'the possibility of tainted evidence in modern proceeding standing throughout the process becomes extremely unlikely'. Apparently it doesn't, hence my question. It is just a question, no need to get personal.
:bow:
Then my misunderstand of the use of the word you and the fact that your link supports my statement completely.
I am wondering if you even bothered to read the link completely. I only skimmed it and found two paragraphs from these experts that completely supports my statement of
Given that the United States in matters of the death penalty must follow an establish court process involving numerous reviews of the case - the possiblity of tainted evidence in modern proceeding standing throughout the process becomes extremely unlikely.
However I see you avoided the emotional appeal question.
Would you like to live next door to Ted Bundy? Or how about Charles Manson? Or even the released child molestor that killed another child recently in Florida?
Adrian II
09-22-2005, 18:43
It seems that many exonerated cases were not all that “modern” since they didn’t have things like DNA testing at the time of the convictions. I think Redleg is talking about now modern. :bow:Of course, Yesdachi. And the point is -- and that is exactly what the authors are exploring in this article -- that DNA evidence is not the main reason why false murder convictions are now being discovered.
Please bear with me. :bow:
The authors first show that due to modern DNA techniques, there has been a remarkable number of exonerations. Particularly in rape cases, where DNA evidence is most useful because of the nature of the crime.
We have 121 exonerations in rape cases; in 88% of them (107/121) the defendant was the victim of eyewitness misidentification. But we have only six robbery exonerations, all of which include eyewitness misidentifications. What changed? The answer is obvious: DNA. Since 1989, 87% of exonerated rape defendants were cleared by DNA evidence. Only 19% of murder exonerations included DNA evidence (and none of the other non-rape exonerations), and all but a couple of those murders also included rape as well.
Now, if one could extrapolate the percentage of rape exonerations to other serious crimes (in which DNA evidence is less decisive) it would result in an equally remarkable number of exonerations.
In short, the clearest and most important lesson from the recent spike in rape exonerations is that the false convictions that come to light are the tip of an iceberg. Beneath the surface there are other undetected miscarriages of justice in rape cases without testable DNA, and a much larger group of undetected false convictions in robberies and other serious crimes of violence for which DNA identification is useless.
However, exonerations for capital offenses have been even more numerous than exonerations for rape. The authors ask: how come? One explanation could be that false murder convictions are more likely to be discovered because of the comparatively high level of attention that is devoted to reviewing them. That would be Redleg's argument: the review system weeds out false convictions. On the other hand, the authors say, there are several reasons to believe that the number of false convictions in capital cases is higher than in other cases: the extraordinary pressure to secure convictions for heinous crimes; the difficulty of investigating many homicides because, by definition, the victims are unavailable; and extreme incentives for the real killers to frame innocent fall guys when they are facing the possibility of execution.
The authors cite a horrible example of serial-tainting of evidence:
In September 1999, Officer Rafael Perez, who was awaiting retrial on charges of stealing six pounds of impounded cocaine, made a deal with his prosecutors: a five year sentence in return for information on the criminal activities of officers in the CRASH (“Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums”) unit of the Rampart division of the Los Angeles Police Department. Over the next nine months Perez revealed that he and other Rampart part CRASH officers had routinely lied in arrest reports, shot and killed or wounded unarmed suspects and innocent bystanders, planted guns on suspects after shooting them, fabricated evidence, and framed innocent defendants. In the aftermath of this scandal, at least 100 criminal defendants who had been framed by Rampart CRASH officers—and possibly as many as 150—had their convictions vacated and dismissed by Los Angeles County judges in late 1999 and 2000. The great majority were young Hispanic men who had pled guilty to false felony gun or drug charges.
Hence their conclusion that 'we are both much more likely to convict innocent defendants of murder—and especially capital murder—than of other crimes, and a large number of false convictions in non-capital cases are never discovered because nobody ever seriously investigates the possibility of error'.
yesdachi
09-22-2005, 21:55
Please bear with me. :bow:
Interesting info and perspective :bow: . I would happily concede that the justice system needs work (perhaps more than I thought :disappointed: ) but I still want the rabid dog put down.
Beyond a reasonable doubt doesn’t mean much if you’re working with false evidence but we can’t assume that all convictions are wrong or it would be an injustice to punish anyone. With powerful numbers like 107 of 121 exonerated rape cases were due to eyewitness misidentification, I think any defense attorney worth a spit could get his client off if that was the only evidence available. Throw in a line reinforcing the weight of what happens if convicted, death, and it would definitely take more than eyewitness testimony to get a guilty beyond a reasonable doubt verdict. If an occasional innocent person is convicted and sentenced to death and later exonerated than it should make us more and more passionate about ensuring that our trials are fair and that criminals are convicted of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The system needs to be constantly improving and monitored but for the sake of my families safety it works well enough for me to say the death penalty is appropriate for serious crimes. Put the rabid dog down.
These bad cops in the LAPD should be made an example of and so should their superiors, a scandal of that magnitude shouldn’t go unnoticed by their bosses and if it truly did they are terrible bosses and should be punished anyhow. :veryangry:
bmolsson
09-23-2005, 03:18
The state should make restitution to the family of the innocent only if the process was shown to be violated by the state. What constitutes a violation of the process by the state - would be the next question. that should be asked.
Believing that the state should not take another human being's life is well and good in theory - but sometimes society must destroy those who have become nothing but animals for the protection of society.
In a discussion on the responsibility of the state, its irrelevant what guilty people might do to children etc. That is just an emotional approach.
The actual issue of the question is that if we have decided that we take a life for a life, how are the state going to be able to live up to this moral as well in case of a mistake.
Also violation of the process is actually irrelevant for the victim. Its similar to supress a penalty on somebody that is declared insane, which in the example of "rabid dogs" are the most reasonable explanation for horrible crimes.
Bottom line remains, the state can not live up to the moral where a life is taken for a life. This is for me the most important argument against death penalty. Our society are better than the murderers that you want to execute.
A small note to this, I am against death penalty by princip, but I have no problem at all to understand your emotional view on this, since I share it. But law is not about emotions......... ~:grouphug:
In a discussion on the responsibility of the state, its irrelevant what guilty people might do to children etc. That is just an emotional approach. Its revelant when the individual is convicted of harming a child. But notice I stated it was an emotional appeal in the very beginning because most of the time those against the death penality use emotional appeal to justify why the death penality should not be in place.
The actual issue of the question is that if we have decided that we take a life for a life, how are the state going to be able to live up to this moral as well in case of a mistake.
The state, trough the courts, determines beyond a reasonable doubt about the guilt or innocence of the accused. That is what the purpose of the courts in determining if the accused is guilty of the crime in which he is charged. In this aspect the court is amoral - it weighs the truth to determine guilt or innocent.
Attempting to place a moral equilency on the state is not relevant - the courts determine the innocent or guilt of the accused - the state determines what form of retribution is called for for the crime the accused is convicted of.
If due process if followed by the state - the moral equilancy (SP) you are trying to advocate here does not apply. If the individuals representing the state violate the due process - then they should be held accountable for thier actions - that is how the state lives up to the moral.
Also violation of the process is actually irrelevant for the victim. Its similar to supress a penalty on somebody that is declared insane, which in the example of "rabid dogs" are the most reasonable explanation for horrible crimes.
The violation of the process is only relevant to the criminal being prosecuted. If due process is followed the verdict is based upon guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If the jury can not determine that then the accused must be set free.
Bottom line remains, the state can not live up to the moral where a life is taken for a life. This is for me the most important argument against death penalty. Our society are better than the murderers that you want to execute.
Your committing an emotional appeal arguement.
A small note to this, I am against death penalty by princip, but I have no problem at all to understand your emotional view on this, since I share it. But law is not about emotions......... ~:grouphug:
Law is about justice and punishment is about retribution.
Some actions deserve the removal of that individual from society. Personally I prefer that the three catergories of murders I discussed as deserving the death penality to be locked up in a 6 foot by 8 foot cell for the rest of thier life - never to have the opporunity to step outside of that cell. No opporunity to see the sun or the stars ever again. No Television - and only a few books to read. However currently that is not done in the United States because its considered cruel and inhumane - so I will have to accept the death penality as the only viable way to remove the "Rabid dog" from society.
Soulforged
09-23-2005, 05:18
Again you will not get me to change my mind about the death penality as a whole. You can get me to agree that its to loosely (SP) applied in the state of Texas - where almost every murder case can recieve a death penality if convicted. However some crimes once the individual is convicted warrant the death penality - mass murder, rape and then murder, rape and then murder of a child - all warrant the death penalty. Nothing warrants nothing in the penal system, there's always a residual of doubt.
[warning an emotional appeal arguement is about to be presented]
Let me ask you this - in your country do you put down rabid dogs?
Why is a mass murder anymore precious then a rabid dog?
Why is a rapist and murder of childern any more precious then the life that he has taken?
[end of emotional appeal] No we put rabid dogs in an altar and praise them ~;) . Again is not the person that's judged but the action. Killing the person will not make any difference to retribution. You're going to the side of some people that try to justify death penalty this way: "And what about the rights of the deaths?" one of the most ingnorant questions ever. An evil has been done, why do two?
The individual who committs such crimes has placed himself at the mercy of society - so by virtue of entering the court system for his crime - society gets to judge his actions. Because society gets to judge - it gets to set the punishment for the convicted individual. If society determines that only the most severe punishment is warranted for spefic crimes - then the society has the right through its state appratus to make such a determination. The individual never places himself at the mercy of society, the state forces him. Here my anarchist mind can help you understand such statement, but it's obvious anyway. However the state as said, gave the individual the imprescriptible guarantees of freedom and life, but sure it can take those when it wants...no? There's an interesting thing here. The state tries to prevent murder, but it does this itself in arbitrary occassions? Sorry but I think that the logical fallacy is here.
If the state can not decide over the life of another human being who violates the laws and the rights of others to live - then what can the state decide on? Your professor's answer contained a fallacy and he was using an emotional appeal. And futhermore he was placing a moral into the punishment decision. Pardon me? A fallacy? Explain this, because he's one of the most recogniced professors here in penal matter. Yes it was an emotional appeal, but with all the respect, you did it too. Again the state cannot decide over the "life" an human being, but apparently it can decide over the "freedom" of an human being. I want to go a further more and say that the state only can decide over the patrimony of a person wich is adquired by the work done and provided by the system. His life and freedom (though freedom could be argued) predates that system, thus the state has not power over them, no formal power anyway, it appears that it has a lot of material power.
The state should make restitution to the family of the innocent only if the process was shown to be violated by the state. What constitutes a violation of the process by the state - would be the next question. that should be asked. So you agree with me, a fine when there's a murder, only that the state is the only one that can pay fines.
The Death Penalty should only be used in the most horrendous of crimes - and if the individual is convicted based upon the evidence and the jury or judges (Depending on the trail process) determine that the evidence concludes that the person is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt - the the state has followed its stated due process. But Red, it's very doubtful that a possition over privation of freedom could be sostained by the power of the state, how can you reduce all to formalities when it's a decision over the life? Even more when dogmatic cases with less circumstances, with all proof presumed and presumed 100% founded are just as difficult to resolve by the dogma? Add at all this real cases with variations, lies, treasons, state instrumentalism, false proof, ignorant jury, corrupt judge, do I've to continue?
Will innocent men confess to crimes they did not commit because of the pressure applied by the police to arrest a suspect? Evidence shows that it has been done in the past. Should we remove the death penalty from the prospect of punishment because of the wrongs done by police in the pursuit of a suspect? No I don't think so - the state must insure due process is followed. May I remind you that you're making a decision ove the life of an human being, and not anual budget?
Again would you want a rabid dog walking the streets to harm others over and over again? Or would you prefer the state to remove them from causing any harm ever again to society? And again I tell you, the state can only judge actions not persons. If the state kills because it presumes that the person will do it again (decision over person), then it's going beyond it's artributes. What will you say on the case of a seriously mentally damaged individual (like a psychotic- I should remind you that this individual does not controls it's actions and does not perceives the disvalue of that action)? And what on the case of seriously "misinformed" individual (one wich doesn't know that homicide is wrong because it mistakes people with animals, for example)?
On the rest of your statements it could be applied the same refutations that I gave, and your last question is in essence false, the person is not a rabid dog, ever... Also a rapist (even in mass) is retributing to society equal to murder? You have also lost all sense of justice here, even loooking at it from your logic, the rapist doesn't take away life it takes freedom!
Law is about justice and punishment is about retribution. You're wrong.Again maybe retribution is the better justification for punishment, but not the only one, and punishment can be about prevention and retribution at the same time.
Nothing warrants nothing in the penal system, there's always a residual of doubt.
If its because of doubt then why bother with any justice or government for that matter. Lets just let society go back to the laws of survival. Certain crimes of horrendous nature require the death penality ro remove thsoe individuals permently from society. If you can guarntee a life of deprivation of freedom and isolation once convicted - I am more then willing to settle for that because its a far worse punishment. But currently no such guarnatee is available.
No we put rabid dogs in an altar and praise them ~;) . Again is not the person that's judged but the action. Killing the person will not make any difference to retribution. You're going to the side of some people that try to justify death penalty this way: "And what about the rights of the deaths?" one of the most ingnorant questions ever. An evil has been done, why do two?
Again would you like to live next to Ted Bundy, or Charles Manson? If a person committs a crime and has no compassion or remorse about his actions - then that person has shown that he is no longer a member of society. It seems you are more concerned with the well-being of the individual who commits the crime then the well-being of the victim. These individuals will not reform or become productive members of society because they have/had absolutely no remorse concerning their actions.
The individual never places himself at the mercy of society, the state forces him. Here my anarchist mind can help you understand such statement, but it's obvious anyway. However the state as said, gave the individual the imprescriptible guarantees of freedom and life, but sure it can take those when it wants...no? There's an interesting thing here. The state tries to prevent murder, but it does this itself in arbitrary occassions? Sorry but I think that the logical fallacy is here.
I am not an anarchist because its a failed philosophy - in an anarchist society you would not have law and order - you would have something else. I don't buy into any such philosophy that does not hold a man accountable to society for his breaking of the law. When you break the law you are at the mercy of society about what will be done if your convicted of the crime.
Pardon me? A fallacy? Explain this, because he's one of the most recogniced professors here in penal matter. Yes it was an emotional appeal, but with all the respect, you did it too. Again the state cannot decide over the "life" an human being, but apparently it can decide over the "freedom" of an human being. I want to go a further more and say that the state only can decide over the patrimony of a person wich is adquired by the work done and provided by the system. His life and freedom (though freedom could be argued) predates that system, thus the state has not power over them, no formal power anyway, it appears that it has a lot of material power.
An emotion appeal is indeed a fallacy. If your professor stated what you said he did - then he committed a logical fallacy to support his claim. If you don't accept my rebuttal using the same appeal - then you should not accept his appeal either.
So you agree with me, a fine when there's a murder, only that the state is the only one that can pay fines.
What the state does in executing an individual that has been processed through the legal system and given due process is execution of an individual who has commited a crime and has been found guilty of such a crime. If the state commits such an act in error then it must pay retribution to the family. Futhermore the retribution is holding the individuals responsible who violated the due process that should of been given to the accused.
Murder is defined as 1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought. The state does not murder it executes sentences on the convicted.
But Red, it's very doubtful that a possition over privation of freedom could be sostained by the power of the state, how can you reduce all to formalities when it's a decision over the life? Even more when dogmatic cases with less circumstances, with all proof presumed and presumed 100% founded are just as difficult to resolve by the dogma? Add at all this real cases with variations, lies, treasons, state instrumentalism, false proof, ignorant jury, corrupt judge, do I've to continue?
Then the state must review its legal system - to insure that the due process is always followed. That is not an arguement against the death penality - your presenting an arguement against the whole legal system. Errors happen in the process everyday - that is why criminal cases are reviewed at numerous level depending upon the severity of the case. The accused can even request an appeal on his conviction if he can provided an arguement showing that the process was not followed correctly or that criticial information was not available at the time of trail - and many other reasons for that matter.
May I remind you that you're making a decision ove the life of an human being, and not anual budget?
More then aware of it. I have made life and death decisions in real life a number of times. To include ones involving that risk my own life.
And again I tell you, the state can only judge actions not persons. If the state kills because it presumes that the person will do it again (decision over person), then it's going beyond it's artributes. What will you say on the case of a seriously mentally damaged individual (like a psychotic- I should remind you that this individual does not controls it's actions and does not perceives the disvalue of that action)? And what on the case of seriously "misinformed" individual (one wich doesn't know that homicide is wrong because it mistakes people with animals, for example)?
And your point is what? You might want to check on sociopathic individuals, they are in completely control of what they are doing. Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, and many others that commit the type of crimes that warrant the death penalty are indeed sociopathic. When people resort to the behavior of such horrendous consquences to others - then they have placed themselves by their own actions to suffer the consequences that they themselves imposed upon others,
On the rest of your statements it could be applied the same refutations that I gave, and your last question is in essence false, the person is not a rabid dog, ever... Also a rapist (even in mass) is retributing to society equal to murder? You have also lost all sense of justice here, even loooking at it from your logic, the rapist doesn't take away life it takes freedom!
Again look at what is written - I said the rapist who murders his victim. A rapist can suffer through the deprivation of his freedom along with all other convicted felons. Those who commit not only rape but kill their victims have committed an act - if proven guilty of the crime - that warrants the death penality.
Oh indeed some men have gone down the path of being "rabid dog" - no reasoning behind there killing of other human beings other then their own animalistic pleasure in doing so. Would you like to read about them - Charles Manson is still alive serving a life sentence in California - no remorse at all in him. Ted Bundy and others can be read about also.
You're wrong.Again maybe retribution is the better justification for punishment, but not the only one, and punishment can be about prevention and retribution at the same time.
Check out what punishment means by its definition. Its not about prevention - that is the side effect of punishment that many have decided to focus on. Punishment by definition is retribution for the act committed. Your applying a dogma to punishment to support what the penal system and justice does.
Soulforged
09-24-2005, 02:53
If its because of doubt then why bother with any justice or government for that matter. Lets just let society go back to the laws of survival. Certain crimes of horrendous nature require the death penality ro remove thsoe individuals permently from society. If you can guarntee a life of deprivation of freedom and isolation once convicted - I am more then willing to settle for that because its a far worse punishment. But currently no such guarnatee is available. Yes but one thing is to fail about the freedom of a person, another far to different is to fail over it's right to exist.
Again would you like to live next to Ted Bundy, or Charles Manson? If a person committs a crime and has no compassion or remorse about his actions - then that person has shown that he is no longer a member of society. It seems you are more concerned with the well-being of the individual who commits the crime then the well-being of the victim. These individuals will not reform or become productive members of society because they have/had absolutely no remorse concerning their actions. That he's no longer a member? Even if that were true, even if the state can judge such pretentions (because it cant's), that justifies the society to kill another human being? So you're on the side of those "and what about the rights of the victims?", if the victim is death then it has no rights if it lives then it will be protected properly, but the person who commited the crime should not pay because another person don't feels safe. And I'm more concerned with the rights of all human being, maybe if you were accused of something and charged with death penalty, just maybe you'll understand the "rabid dog". It doesn't matter if the individual reform, even more if you talk about retribution, it's just epiring guilt. And again the nor the state nor you can make an hipotetical assumption on what the individual will do...that's about morals not rights. The penal law has accepted the disvalue of action not of person. And yes I'll accept them, as long as they've no mental patologic disorder, wich is unresolvable. And I don't know who's Ted Bundy. In any case I clearly stated that the only case in wich it should be allowed to jail persons is in this kind of cases, serious mental disorders. I'll recommend you something, quit talking about horrifying acts, because it has to do little with penal law, and more with morality, and the ritual of death carried by the state is horrifying too.
I am not an anarchist because its a failed philosophy - in an anarchist society you would not have law and order - you would have something else. I don't buy into any such philosophy that does not hold a man accountable to society for his breaking of the law. When you break the law you are at the mercy of society about what will be done if your convicted of the crime. Then you didn't understand anarchism. I'll put it shortly: in anarchism you've laws, it's natural law called equity (from where all positive rights come), what you don't have is a centralized state. An anarchist society is an acefallus society (with out a head). But you didn't answer my question.
An emotion appeal is indeed a fallacy. If your professor stated what you said he did - then he committed a logical fallacy to support his claim. If you don't accept my rebuttal using the same appeal - then you should not accept his appeal either. Then explain why it's a fallacy, for what I remember of fallacies this has not the qualities of one. It comes from phylosophical points of view. Your rebuttal has a lot to do with morality, wich doesn't enters penal law because it will have notorious bad effects, like death penalty, inparciality, arbitrarieness, and so on...
What the state does in executing an individual that has been processed through the legal system and given due process is execution of an individual who has commited a crime and has been found guilty of such a crime. If the state commits such an act in error then it must pay retribution to the family. Futhermore the retribution is holding the individuals responsible who violated the due process that should of been given to the accused. Again: Do you accept the state paying fines? I must remind you that the state is also a person, a juridical person.
Murder is defined as 1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought. The state does not murder it executes sentences on the convicted. Yes well I used the word murder in generical sense. Here it's called agravated homicide. LOL- If your judicial system and legislative system were codified this kind of definitions will cause disasters. Then the state don't commits murder but it commits an homicide, wich it also tries to prevent.
Then the state must review its legal system - to insure that the due process is always followed. That is not an arguement against the death penality - your presenting an arguement against the whole legal system. Errors happen in the process everyday - that is why criminal cases are reviewed at numerous level depending upon the severity of the case. The accused can even request an appeal on his conviction if he can provided an arguement showing that the process was not followed correctly or that criticial information was not available at the time of trail - and many other reasons for that matter. Ok, but again, you can bring a person out of jail, you cannot bring it out of death. If the state recognices the errors then the death penalty is a terrible and despotic institution.
More then aware of it. I have made life and death decisions in real life a number of times. To include ones involving that risk my own life. Oh I'll love to hear does wonderful stories ~;) . But meanwhile, why don't you realize that in your statement it doesn't seems like it.
And your point is what? You might want to check on sociopathic individuals, they are in completely control of what they are doing. Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, and many others that commit the type of crimes that warrant the death penalty are indeed sociopathic. When people resort to the behavior of such horrendous consquences to others - then they have placed themselves by their own actions to suffer the consequences that they themselves imposed upon others, Again an eye for an eye...I believed this was old... In any case you didn't answered my questions, maybe I should give you a concret case for you to see the problems of conviction, even considering that the state can private mans of freedom.
Again look at what is written - I said the rapist who murders his victim. A rapist can suffer through the deprivation of his freedom along with all other convicted felons. Those who commit not only rape but kill their victims have committed an act - if proven guilty of the crime - that warrants the death penality. What if the person raped by error and then killed to cover the crime? What if the victim really don't was a victim but it showed consense and then menaced the man with acusations, so the man killed him/she?
Oh indeed some men have gone down the path of being "rabid dog" - no reasoning behind there killing of other human beings other then their own animalistic pleasure in doing so. Would you like to read about them - Charles Manson is still alive serving a life sentence in California - no remorse at all in him. Ted Bundy and others can be read about also. So from your logic if the man cannot reason then it's no more a man. Then there will be no abortions (I agree with this but because of other arguments) and not euthanasy. The physical form is the only thing that defines a person in law. And I know the case of Charles Manson, but it's irrelevant if he shows remorse or not, if you dislake him then try not to read about him. He's serving life in prison, to me it's more than enough, even for a "deranged".Try to remember from your position that society probably caused your "rabid dog".
Check out what punishment means by its definition. Its not about prevention - that is the side effect of punishment that many have decided to focus on. Punishment by definition is retribution for the act committed. Your applying a dogma to punishment to support what the penal system and justice does. Yes I'm giving you the technical arguments and definitions, I thought they have some place here... ~:confused:
bmolsson
09-24-2005, 03:12
The state, trough the courts, determines beyond a reasonable doubt about the guilt or innocence of the accused. That is what the purpose of the courts in determining if the accused is guilty of the crime in which he is charged. In this aspect the court is amoral - it weighs the truth to determine guilt or innocent.
I don't agree. A court is in real life a moral being, even more with a jury. Its just reality.
If the individuals representing the state violate the due process - then they should be held accountable for thier actions - that is how the state lives up to the moral.
This is just the same old story to hold the perfect state above responsibility. The individuals working for the state have the states protection and the state have to take the responsibility for their actions. If not, justice will never be served.
Some actions deserve the removal of that individual from society.
The retribution from the state in case of a mistake is still an open question.
Yes but one thing is to fail about the freedom of a person, another far to different is to fail over it's right to exist.
There is absolutely no difference in the failure. That is why death penality cases are reviewed.
That he's no longer a member? Even if that were true, even if the state can judge such pretentions (because it cant's), that justifies the society to kill another human being? So you're on the side of those "and what about the rights of the victims?", if the victim is death then it has no rights if it lives then it will be protected properly, but the person who commited the crime should not pay because another person don't feels safe. And I'm more concerned with the rights of all human being, maybe if you were accused of something and charged with death penalty, just maybe you'll understand the "rabid dog". It doesn't matter if the individual reform, even more if you talk about retribution, it's just epiring guilt. And again the nor the state nor you can make an hipotetical assumption on what the individual will do...that's about morals not rights. The penal law has accepted the disvalue of action not of person. And yes I'll accept them, as long as they've no mental patologic disorder, wich is unresolvable. And I don't know who's Ted Bundy. In any case I clearly stated that the only case in wich it should be allowed to jail persons is in this kind of cases, serious mental disorders. I'll recommend you something, quit talking about horrifying acts, because it has to do little with penal law, and more with morality, and the ritual of death carried by the state is horrifying too.
Emotional Appeal is it. I frankly won't get charged with a crime because I pay attention to what I am doing. So attempting to say I will committ a murder and face the death penality is just an emotional appeal. And if I do committ such a crime - I would deserve what ever punishment society deems is necessary for the consequence of my actions. Be it death or life in prison. I probably got more understanding about the concept of a "rabid dog" then you can image - I understand sociopathic fairily well since my brother and my step-son both have that condition. Absolutely no remorse for the actions that they do. Lucky for them they haven't decided that it would be fun to kill another human being (yet) and if they do - they can suffer the consequences of thier actions.
Horrendous acts is what constitutes the death penality. One can not talk about justice, the penal system, or the death penality without discussing morality. You asked the question - don't be upset when the discussion doesn't go the way in which you wish it to go.
Penal Law and Justice is at the service of the society.
Then you didn't understand anarchism. I'll put it shortly: in anarchism you've laws, it's natural law called equity (from where all positive rights come), what you don't have is a centralized state. An anarchist society is an acefallus society (with out a head). But you didn't answer my question.
Anarchism is a failed philosophy - name one state or city that functions under an anarchic system. Natural law does not exist in the way you would like to think - Natural law is all about the survival of the strongest.
Then explain why it's a fallacy, for what I remember of fallacies this has not the qualities of one. It comes from phylosophical points of view. Your rebuttal has a lot to do with morality, wich doesn't enters penal law because it will have notorious bad effects, like death penalty, inparciality, arbitrarieness, and so on...
Look it up - fallacies are not hard to find with a google search. Morality enters the discussion every time about the justice system and the law. You once again brought it into play with your asking about the death penality. Again don't get high and mighty when the discussion does not go the way in which you intended. You have also used morality in your comments wether you wish to ackownledge them or not.
Again: Do you accept the state paying fines? I must remind you that the state is also a person, a juridical person.
The state can not pay a fine - since its the judicial system. All it can pay is restitution based upon its own desire to do so.
Yes well I used the word murder in generical sense. Here it's called agravated homicide. LOL- If your judicial system and legislative system were codified this kind of definitions will cause disasters. Then the state don't commits murder but it commits an homicide, wich it also tries to prevent.
You attempted an emotional appeal and a moral arguement with the use of murder. Again the state does not murder an individual. The state executes an individual based upon his conviction of a capital offense.
Ok, but again, you can bring a person out of jail, you cannot bring it out of death. If the state recognices the errors then the death penalty is a terrible and despotic institution.
Agreed it is indeed that - and it should be reserved for the most horrendous of crimes.
Oh I'll love to hear does wonderful stories ~;) . But meanwhile, why don't you realize that in your statement it doesn't seems like it.
Then that is because we haven't covered that subject material in this discussion. And no they are not wonderful stories - they are very tradgic for many that were involved. However the one interesting one is when I stopped a sucide by giving him a punch in the throat and an arm bar on the side that he was holding a knife waving it around.
Again an eye for an eye...I believed this was old... In any case you didn't answered my questions, maybe I should give you a concret case for you to see the problems of conviction, even considering that the state can private mans of freedom.
Again the questions have been answered - just not the answers you wanted to hear. I understand the problems with conviction - some having errors, some because the death penality has been to loosely applied. However that does not negate it as a form of punishment for the most horrendous of crimes.
What if the person raped by error and then killed to cover the crime? What if the victim really don't was a victim but it showed consense and then menaced the man with acusations, so the man killed him/she?
Do you realize how acidine these questions are - it goes to show why the individual needs to face the consequences of their actions. Your first examble is exactly one of the crimes that should result in a death penality case - your second one would not fall into that catergory depending upon how the case was presented for prosecution.
So from your logic if the man cannot reason then it's no more a man.
Incorrect - men who can not reason should be treated and trained to reason. If they can not be taught to function in society then society must take care of them. I am not discussing such an individual.
Ted Bundy and Charles Manson had no reasoning behind their Killings - just for the sake of their own internal satification.
Then there will be no abortions (I agree with this but because of other arguments) and not euthanasy.
Got no problem with abortion during the 1st Trimester. However the discussion is not about abortion now is it.
The physical form is the only thing that defines a person in law. And I know the case of Charles Manson, but it's irrelevant if he shows remorse or not, if you dislake him then try not to read about him. He's serving life in prison, to me it's more than enough, even for a "deranged".Try to remember from your position that society probably caused your "rabid dog".
NOt really - your mental state also defines a person's ability to understand the law and the consequences of their actions. People who committ horrendous crimes are not caused by society - they create their conditions themselves. Blaming society for the failure of individuals to cope within society - is another logical fallacy
Yes I'm giving you the technical arguments and definitions, I thought they have some place here... ~:confused:
Well then your not givnign technical arguements when you call the death penalty - murder. So this is not completely correct now is it?
I don't agree. A court is in real life a moral being, even more with a jury. Its just reality.
Then that is your opinion - the court is suppose to come to the conclusion of truth to reach a verdict - not morals
This is just the same old story to hold the perfect state above responsibility. The individuals working for the state have the states protection and the state have to take the responsibility for their actions. If not, justice will never be served.
The retribution from the state in case of a mistake is still an open question.
Answer was given - and not accepted because you wish not to accept it. The answer is the same for all miscarriage of justice - wether it be a simple criminal matter or one involving the death penalty.
bmolsson
09-24-2005, 06:19
Well then your not givnign technical arguements when you call the death penalty - murder. So this is not completely correct now is it?
This is actually an interesting question.
The killing is well planned and executed with cold blood.
If an innocent man is convicted to death penalty, it is actually premeditated murder and should be treated accordingly. If the standard retribution for premeditated murder is death, then the state should answer for that.
bmolsson
09-24-2005, 06:24
Then that is your opinion - the court is suppose to come to the conclusion of truth to reach a verdict - not morals
The verdict is based on the traditions, rules and regulations built on the local moral. Even more, if a jury is involved, the valuation of evidence is also based on the local moral. Also all the circumstances around the incident/crime will be viewed morally upon.
Answer was given - and not accepted because you wish not to accept it. The answer is the same for all miscarriage of justice - wether it be a simple criminal matter or one involving the death penalty.
No responsibility for the institution is not an answer. A company have the responsibility clearly outlined, why shouldn't governmental institutions also have this responsibility?
This is actually an interesting question.
The killing is well planned and executed with cold blood.
If an innocent man is convicted to death penalty, it is actually premeditated murder and should be treated accordingly. If the standard retribution for premeditated murder is death, then the state should answer for that.
Your attempting to equate execution to murder. You might want to check out the definitions of terms.
Murder is the unlawful killing of another
Homicide is the killing of another
Execution is 2 : a putting to death especially as a legal penalty
3 : the process of enforcing a legal judgment also : a judicial writ directing such enforcement
Are you attempting to state that the state is killing people without going through a trial and judicial review.
Your committing an emotional appeal to support your postion on the death penality. A nice logical fallacy that many will by because of the emotional appeal behind it.
The verdict is based on the traditions, rules and regulations built on the local moral. Even more, if a jury is involved, the valuation of evidence is also based on the local moral. Also all the circumstances around the incident/crime will be viewed morally upon.
Well then if the courts are based on morals - then the arguement against the death penality and most of Soul's postion on punishment and justice begins to fall flat on its face.
No responsibility for the institution is not an answer. A company have the responsibility clearly outlined, why shouldn't governmental institutions also have this responsibility?
Again you do not want to accept the responsibly that is provided. The courts finds that the individual was guilty of the crime. Would you like to hold the judge responsible for the conclusion. How about the Jury for making the decision on the guilt. Or how about the prosecuting attorney. The state can only investigate and determine who violated the individuals right to due process and hold that individual accountable for his actions. That is the responsiblity of the state. Just like the state is holding the convicted felon responsable for his actions. You accept the standard when it does not apply to the death penality - however the second that the death penality enters into the equation concerning punishment - everyone wants a different standard to apply.
It does not - nor should it. If the society does not want the state to have the death penality - then society should campaign and force the law makers to remove it from the possible courses of punishment.
bmolsson
09-24-2005, 06:39
Your attempting to equate execution to murder. You might want to check out the definitions of terms.
Murder is the unlawful killing of another
Homicide is the killing of another
Execution is 2 : a putting to death especially as a legal penalty
3 : the process of enforcing a legal judgment also : a judicial writ directing such enforcement
Are you attempting to state that the state is killing people without going through a trial and judicial review.
Your committing an emotional appeal to support your postion on the death penality. A nice logical fallacy that many will by because of the emotional appeal behind it.
No emotions here. No molested children or mass murdered families.
Sure, execution is as you say a legal penalty. But if the legal process is flawed and a mistake is made ? This means that the killing is no longer a legal execution and the victim(s) have a right to retribution. Its not enough with a "ops" and "better luck next time", since that would create a tyrannic society and not something we are used to.
Soulforged
09-24-2005, 06:43
Well then if the courts are based on morals - then the arguement against the death penality and most of Soul's postion on punishment and justice begins to fall flat on its face. No the court always have to respect moral and customs (when they're rational) but the decisions only are based on law (rights).
Again you do not want to accept the responsibly that is provided. The courts finds that the individual was guilty of the crime. Would you like to hold the judge responsible for the conclusion. How about the Jury for making the decision on the guilt. Or how about the prosecuting attorney. The state can only investigate and determine who violated the individuals right to due process and hold that individual accountable for his actions. That is the responsiblity of the state. Just like the state is holding the convicted felon responsable for his actions. You accept the standard when it does not apply to the death penality - however the second that the death penality enters into the equation concerning punishment - everyone wants a different standard to apply. Well maybe we feel humanitarian ~;) . On the other side I clearly didn't based my arguments on there. I also don't like people on jail by mistake, but at least like said, you can bring back people from jail, not from death.
It does not - nor should it. If the society does not want the state to have the death penality - then society should campaign and force the law makers to remove it from the possible courses of punishment. Well in your state are movements that support the abolishment...or am I mistaken? Also wich states in USA support death penalty (besides old Texas)?
Soulforged
09-24-2005, 06:45
No emotions here. No molested children or mass murdered families.
Sure, execution is as you say a legal penalty. But if the legal process is flawed and a mistake is made ? This means that the killing is no longer a legal execution and the victim(s) have a right to retribution. Its not enough with a "ops" and "better luck next time", since that would create a tyrannic society and not something we are used to. I agree, and that's what I've pointed out to Red. Though he still holds the position of "well the state can pay fines, the individual not", how foundable that possition is, I really don't know...
No emotions here. No molested children or mass murdered families.
Thats because you don't want to see it. Your arguement is emotional appeal - same with the second part of this post.
Sure, execution is as you say a legal penalty. But if the legal process is flawed and a mistake is made ? This means that the killing is no longer a legal execution and the victim(s) have a right to retribution. Its not enough with a "ops" and "better luck next time", since that would create a tyrannic society and not something we are used to.
Did I say that? Are you not wanting to accept what the state can and can not do when a mistake is made? The recourse for the state is the same regardless of the type of punishment recieved by the convicted. Just as the trail process is the same - only more intensive in the review process for the death penality case.
Well in your state are movements that support the abolishment...or am I mistaken? Also wich states in USA support death penalty (besides old Texas)?
An easy answer to find - all that is required is a google search by yourself. You can also find all the efforts to abolish the death penality in such a matter.
I agree, and that's what I've pointed out to Red. Though he still holds the position of "well the state can pay fines, the individual not", how foundable that possition is, I really don't know...
Try again - that is not what was stated. Many crimes the individual happens to pay a fine - we were discussing the death penality when you asked that question. The individual does not pay a fine in a murder case - he recieves a different form of punishment for his actions based upon the laws of the state.
And the state does not pay fines - it pays restitution. Which is what I stated.
bmolsson
09-24-2005, 06:51
Well then if the courts are based on morals - then the arguement against the death penality and most of Soul's postion on punishment and justice begins to fall flat on its face.
So ??
Again you do not want to accept the responsibly that is provided. The courts finds that the individual was guilty of the crime. Would you like to hold the judge responsible for the conclusion. How about the Jury for making the decision on the guilt. Or how about the prosecuting attorney. The state can only investigate and determine who violated the individuals right to due process and hold that individual accountable for his actions. That is the responsiblity of the state. Just like the state is holding the convicted felon responsable for his actions. You accept the standard when it does not apply to the death penality - however the second that the death penality enters into the equation concerning punishment - everyone wants a different standard to apply.
The problem is that death penalty is permanent and cant be reversed. This means that the correction of a mistake is not possible towards the victim. Also the problem you describe is the reason for why the death penalty is difficult to have in an open, far and just society.
Further more, the state must have an responsibility. If an individual employeed by the state makes mistake, abuse power or similar, then its the states problem to prosecute and punish that individual, not anyone else.
For example if you get mistreated when at a hospital, you get compensated by the hospital not the individual physicians treating you.
It does not - nor should it. If the society does not want the state to have the death penality - then society should campaign and force the law makers to remove it from the possible courses of punishment.
Its the accountability and transparancy we are discussing, not the actual reason for the death penalty.
Soulforged
09-24-2005, 06:54
An easy answer to find - all that is required is a google search by yourself. You can also find all the efforts to abolish the death penality in such a matter. It was a rethoric question Redleg. The answer i wanted was, "well...yes there's some people against death penalty, hopefully"...Also I'm seeing that you're getting a little upset, be cool man, you are not the condemned to death ~;) .
So ??
So what?
The problem is that death penalty is permanent and cant be reversed. This means that the correction of a mistake is not possible towards the victim. Also the problem you describe is the reason for why the death penalty is difficult to have in an open, far and just society.
Further more, the state must have an responsibility. If an individual employeed by the state makes mistake, abuse power or similar, then its the states problem to prosecute and punish that individual, not anyone else.
For example if you get mistreated when at a hospital, you get compensated by the hospital not the individual physicians treating you.
So you do accept the conclusion for everything not involving the death penality. Since this is exactly what I was saying.
Its the accountability and transparancy we are discussing, not the actual reason for the death penalty.
Yep - however you don't want to accept the accountablity and transparancy for the death penality - but you accept it for all other cases. As your response above indicates to me. So your issue is not one of accountablity and transparancy but of finality of the punishment.
It was a rethoric question Redleg. The answer i wanted was, "well...yes there's some people against death penalty, hopefully"...Also I'm seeing that you're getting a little upset, be cool man, you are not the condemned to death ~;) .
Not upset at all - giving you the same response that the question deserved.
Soulforged
09-24-2005, 07:05
Try again - that is not what was stated. Many crimes the individual happens to pay a fine - we were discussing the death penality when you asked that question. The individual does not pay a fine in a murder case - he recieves a different form of punishment for his actions based upon the laws of the state. The topic was always about abolishing privation of freedom, you leaded this to the next level. Also this doesn't has to do with the question.
And the state does not pay fines - it pays restitution. Which is what I stated.I was talking figuratively. You say that the individual cannot pay a fine, but you're ok with the mistake of the state, if it has leaded the process properly, with paying a "fine" (restitution, is poorly used, how can the state restitute the human life, taken away by mistake in a "ritualisitic" process, with money?).
The topic was always about abolishing privation of freedom, you leaded this to the next level. Also this doesn't has to do with the question.
Whom asked whom about the death penality? Who did not want to discuss morals being involved in punishment? Come on now anyone with half a brain could have seen where the discussion was going to go the second you asked about the death penality.
However yes you are correct I indeed lead it to this discussion for a reason. Not to argue for the death penality but for another reason - covered in the last paragraph of this post.
I was talking figuratively. You say that the individual cannot pay a fine, but you're ok with the mistake of the state, if it has leaded the process properly, with paying a "fine" (restitution, is poorly used, how can the state restitute the human life, taken away by mistake in a "ritualisitic" process, with money?).
How can the convicted murder repay the individual whom he murdered?
This happens more often then the state making a mistake in the conviction and execution of the sentence of a death penality case.
So you accept one standard for the convicted murder - but you do not want the same standard applied to the state for punishing the individual for his crime.
You take a life in the manner in which I have already stated - you get to suffer the consequences of your actions if your found guilty. If you don't like the death penality - then campaign to get in changed.
The death Penality ties in nicely to any discussion about punishment - since it fits the bill nicely, being that it is the most final of all punishments known. It shows that punishment is indeed more about morals then many would like to think. Laws are based upon morals - and other factors also - but morals have a part in law and in punishment. To attempt to discount or remove morals from justice, law, or punishment the equation is not complete nor can one adequately argue their position.
Your spoke earlier that morals do not apply to punishment. But in regards to the death penality your using morals and emotional appeal to justify your negative view on the punishment. Notice even you can not escape the necessity to discuss morals when it comes to the legal system and the law.
bmolsson
09-24-2005, 08:03
So what?
I am not teaming up with Soul against you.... ~:grouphug:
So you do accept the conclusion for everything not involving the death penality. Since this is exactly what I was saying.
I accept the conclusion including the death penalty, its just that how do you guarantee the responsibility against flaws in the use of it.
Yep - however you don't want to accept the accountablity and transparancy for the death penality - but you accept it for all other cases. As your response above indicates to me. So your issue is not one of accountablity and transparancy but of finality of the punishment.
The question is how can you be accountable and transparant towards somebody you just executed ?
bmolsson
09-24-2005, 08:07
How can the convicted murder repay the individual whom he murdered?
This is the question I asked if the state have executed an individual by mistake. In order to make it "modern" we have to put a monetary value as well as a moral value on it.
I am not teaming up with Soul against you.... ~:grouphug:
Didn't think you were because you used morals in your arguement openly.
I accept the conclusion including the death penalty, its just that how do you guarantee the responsibility against flaws in the use of it.
There is no guarantee's - only proper reviews of the case to insure that the individuals rights were honored and that due process was followed.
The question is how can you be accountable and transparant towards somebody you just executed ?
By following the due process in the criminal proceedings. If the due process is violated - you hold the individuals responsible for violating the due process for their actions.
Soulforged
09-24-2005, 20:02
Whom asked whom about the death penality? Who did not want to discuss morals being involved in punishment? Come on now anyone with half a brain could have seen where the discussion was going to go the second you asked about the death penality.First if I asked for death penalty was to make a point about a secondary argument, my primary argument is and will remain, that the state cannot take away imprescriptible guarantees given to the individual.
How can the convicted murder repay the individual whom he murdered? Ok, but is the individual who has guarantees of protection against the state, and not the other way. And besides this sais nothing, because still you want to autorize the state to pay "fines", but not the individual.
This happens more often then the state making a mistake in the conviction and execution of the sentence of a death penality case. You wanted to say "than" right, not "then...Then it doesn't matter how often the point is that persons are falible, wheter they're human persons or juridical persons. Even if they weren't they already gave guarantees to the individual that are being disrespected.
So you accept one standard for the convicted murder - but you do not want the same standard applied to the state for punishing the individual for his crime.Incorrect, if the state has to pay fines when commits mistakes (jail in error) then the individual should have the same treatment. Of course for criminal policies it could be accepted in some cases that the individual who is really dangerous because of patologies, to jail him for certain time, but life in prison is to me to much.
You take a life in the manner in which I have already stated - you get to suffer the consequences of your actions if your found guilty. If you don't like the death penality - then campaign to get in changed. Why is that the answers in this forum coming always from the USA ends in "then if you don't like it do something about it? In this particular case it's nonsense...I live in Buenos Aires, you live in Texas, luckily we don't have death penalty here.
The death Penality ties in nicely to any discussion about punishment - since it fits the bill nicely, being that it is the most final of all punishments known. It shows that punishment is indeed more about morals then many would like to think. Laws are based upon morals - and other factors also - but morals have a part in law and in punishment. To attempt to discount or remove morals from justice, law, or punishment the equation is not complete nor can one adequately argue their position. Oh I already refuted you. Let's see for example the analisis of a penal case, where morals following my point has no place: The case of homicide for example: wich is killing another (I don't think that in your state it has a different description). In the dogma we have three stages: Action (the individual manifested his personality throught his conduct?), Type (objective imputation-did the action caused the result?-objective type-rrefering to the descriptive and normative parts of the positive norm- and subjective- Did the indivual represented those elements?), Antijuridicity (Was the action justified?), Culpability (was the action reprochable-wich has to sum three elements imputability, exegibility and conciousness of antijuridicity) and finally punishability wich determines in the end the punishment that the individual will receive following all the analisis. Now formally the jugde (i doubt the jury) must follow this process to punish, where is the morality in all this? This is pure science not phylosophies. When phylosophies enters is in the justification. The law asks, what is the right to exists of punishment? Wich are the artributes of the state? Considering the definition of person given by the constitution or the civil law: How can we justify punishment? What is the maximum degree acceptable? What can the state judge, persons or actions? To this final question the dogma actually gives always the same answer, actions. The persons will be a subject of moral institutions, not of those wich purpose is judge the actions that have incidence in others. So not, at least formally, the state should not let morality take any place. From a moral point of view even I want to kill one of those "rabid dogs" but from the law point of viw? Never. It's going beyond the atributions of the state, giving to much power to them even when they already surpase many other guarantees this is passing the final one, when there's no turning back. It's really strange to see a true religious christian supporting the policy of zero tolerance.
Your spoke earlier that morals do not apply to punishment. But in regards to the death penality your using morals and emotional appeal to justify your negative view on the punishment. Notice even you can not escape the necessity to discuss morals when it comes to the legal system and the law. Do I? Again my point was always that the state is going way beyond their facultades and that it's violating guarantees of the individual, given by them. This is not morals this is rights. In any case if I permited my moral points of view to enter the discussion is because you didn't wanted to see or pay atention to this violations. But I'll never justify my points of view in morality.
Let's sum this up: If you say that the justification is retribution then:
1- Pay fine: very high fine for certain cases and maybe preventive privation in home. This will not violate any rights except in the case of privation, but it's facultative and exceptional.
2- Privation of freedom: you say that it has to be in most penal cases even when the individual doesn't know what he's doing or didn't knew it at that mement. I say that it should never exist, only in exceptional cases where persons lost all sense of humanity and reason, and cannot be returned to normal community. Exactly this you'll ubicate in the next step. If the state makes a mistake it can be undone.
3- Death: For exceptional cases, even when the individual doesn't know what he's doing, the state by a ritual process can take them out of mortal world (all world). Does the indivual expires guilt? No because in most cases they don't have guilt. Does this serves another purpose? Yes the traquility of the affected persons. But this violates the ultimate guarantee, the right to exist, the right to live. If the state makes a mistake it cannot be undone.
If you look at it from the general prevention:
1- Pay fine: even when it's very high this will not prevent anything, only in exceptional cases when we're sure that the individual will not commit it again, so this is almost unacceptable.
2- Privation of freedom: it will be the most acceptable possition because it prevents other individuals for doing the same (at least ideally), and also reafirms the confidence on the law.
3- Death penalty: The question is. Does this prevents things from happening? No, it's prooved, even when it comes to high punishments of privation of freedom. However it will reafirm the confidence on the law, but are we willing to accept this position, and entire construction of the man as an instrument of the state? No, at least I not.
From the point of view of special prevention, it's unacceptable to pay fines and any other kind of punishment. This theory mostly uses rehabilitation centers and also fines to disuade fully reasonable individuals off commiting imprudences. But killing him? Absolutely no, it will not achieve any rehabilitation, because the man will not be anymore.
If I used any morals here, please point it out...
First if I asked for death penalty was to make a point about a secondary argument, my primary argument is and will remain, that the state cannot take away imprescriptible guarantees given to the individual.
Then you should not be upset in the direction the discussion went - since you asked the question. The state grants the rights to the citizen. If your wanting to discuss the rights that are inherient then you must discuss morals, ethics, and yes even a creator. Your not willing to do so - and therefore your arguement is weak.
Ok, but is the individual who has guarantees of protection against the state, and not the other way.
When you commit a crime and are convicted of such a crime many of your rights are removed by the state because of your actions. Responsiblity, accountablity, and consequence also applies to the individual.
And besides this sais nothing, because still you want to autorize the state to pay "fines", but not the individual.
Again the state does not pay a fine - it pays restitution based upon the wrongness of its action. Its not a fine unless its a court ordered payment.
You wanted to say "than" right, not "then...Then it doesn't matter how often the point is that persons are falible, wheter they're human persons or juridical persons. Even if they weren't they already gave guarantees to the individual that are being disrespected.
And that does not negate the use of the death penality at all, nor does it negate deprivation of rights as a form of punishment in consequence of the individuals criminal actions.
Incorrect, if the state has to pay fines when commits mistakes (jail in error) then the individual should have the same treatment. Of course for criminal policies it could be accepted in some cases that the individual who is really dangerous because of patologies, to jail him for certain time, but life in prison is to me to much.
Then shall we move Charles Manson to live next to you? Again the state does not pay a fine - it pays restitution to the individual for the incorrect action by the state.
Why is that the answers in this forum coming always from the USA ends in "then if you don't like it do something about it? In this particular case it's nonsense...I live in Buenos Aires, you live in Texas, luckily we don't have death penalty here.
Then why are you complaining about a law in the United States? Again the logic applies you don't like it campaign to get it changed that is how a democracy works.
The rest I will answer since I am at work. However you have not refuted nothing - only provided what you believe to be correct.
Oh I already refuted you. Let's see for example the analisis of a penal case, where morals following my point has no place: The case of homicide for example: wich is killing another (I don't think that in your state it has a different description). In the dogma we have three stages: Action (the individual manifested his personality throught his conduct?), Type (objective imputation-did the action caused the result?-objective type-rrefering to the descriptive and normative parts of the positive norm- and subjective- Did the indivual represented those elements?), Antijuridicity (Was the action justified?), Culpability (was the action reprochable-wich has to sum three elements imputability, exegibility and conciousness of antijuridicity) and finally punishability wich determines in the end the punishment that the individual will receive following all the analisis. Now formally the jugde (i doubt the jury) must follow this process to punish, where is the morality in all this? This is pure science not phylosophies. When phylosophies enters is in the justification. The law asks, what is the right to exists of punishment? Wich are the artributes of the state? Considering the definition of person given by the constitution or the civil law: How can we justify punishment? What is the maximum degree acceptable? What can the state judge, persons or actions? To this final question the dogma actually gives always the same answer, actions. The persons will be a subject of moral institutions, not of those wich purpose is judge the actions that have incidence in others. So not, at least formally, the state should not let morality take any place. From a moral point of view even I want to kill one of those "rabid dogs" but from the law point of viw? Never. It's going beyond the atributions of the state, giving to much power to them even when they already surpase many other guarantees this is passing the final one, when there's no turning back. It's really strange to see a true religious christian supporting the policy of zero tolerance.
You are almost 100% correct - however you are forgetting the base principle of punishment and justice. I will give a small hint - its not about rights?
Zero tolerance applies to those who commit horrendous crimes and show no compassion nor remorse in their actions. But that is just me.
Do I? Again my point was always that the state is going way beyond their facultades and that it's violating guarantees of the individual, given by them. This is not morals this is rights. In any case if I permited my moral points of view to enter the discussion is because you didn't wanted to see or pay atention to this violations. But I'll never justify my points of view in morality.
Again you are missing the point - where do rights come from? It does not come from an inherient basis unless you are willing to discuss morals, ethics and yes again even a creator.
Let's sum this up: If you say that the justification is retribution then:
1- Pay fine: very high fine for certain cases and maybe preventive privation in home. This will not violate any rights except in the case of privation, but it's facultative and exceptional.
2- Privation of freedom: you say that it has to be in most penal cases even when the individual doesn't know what he's doing or didn't knew it at that mement. I say that it should never exist, only in exceptional cases where persons lost all sense of humanity and reason, and cannot be returned to normal community. Exactly this you'll ubicate in the next step. If the state makes a mistake it can be undone.
3- Death: For exceptional cases, even when the individual doesn't know what he's doing, the state by a ritual process can take them out of mortal world (all world). Does the indivual expires guilt? No because in most cases they don't have guilt. Does this serves another purpose? Yes the traquility of the affected persons. But this violates the ultimate guarantee, the right to exist, the right to live. If the state makes a mistake it cannot be undone.
If you look at it from the general prevention:
1- Pay fine: even when it's very high this will not prevent anything, only in exceptional cases when we're sure that the individual will not commit it again, so this is almost unacceptable.
2- Privation of freedom: it will be the most acceptable possition because it prevents other individuals for doing the same (at least ideally), and also reafirms the confidence on the law.
3- Death penalty: The question is. Does this prevents things from happening? No, it's prooved, even when it comes to high punishments of privation of freedom. However it will reafirm the confidence on the law, but are we willing to accept this position, and entire construction of the man as an instrument of the state? No, at least I not.
From the point of view of special prevention, it's unacceptable to pay fines and any other kind of punishment. This theory mostly uses rehabilitation centers and also fines to disuade fully reasonable individuals off commiting imprudences. But killing him? Absolutely no, it will not achieve any rehabilitation, because the man will not be anymore.
Opinion - I have absolutely no problem with it - however it means I also don't agree with it.
If I used any morals here, please point it out...
You should be able to recongize it on your own by now.
Soulforged
09-24-2005, 21:12
Then you should not be upset in the direction the discussion went - since you asked the question. The state grants the rights to the citizen. If your wanting to discuss the rights that are inherient then you must discuss morals, ethics, and yes even a creator. Your not willing to do so - and therefore your arguement is weak. I'm not upset,however if you're assuming that the discussion is turning into a ball of hysteria then it's not my fault. Again my final part is not about morals, and my arguments are not weak, they're only weak because you're not willing to discuss them, imposing pocressal power as the confirmation of all the dogma and all what's true.
When you commit a crime and are convicted of such a crime many of your rights are removed by the state because of your actions. Responsiblity, accountablity, and consequence also applies to the individual. Yes but again, I already know this. The problem is that the state then should not give the individuals the imprescriptible guarantees of life and freedom, wich will turn the state in a monster allpowerful.
Again the state does not pay a fine - it pays restitution based upon the wrongness of its action. Its not a fine unless its a court ordered payment. And again i say to you, "fine" not fine. I'm not using a technical term because you are not doing it yourself. The state cannot restitute a life, however can restitute money or freedom.
And that does not negate the use of the death penality at all, nor does it negate deprivation of rights as a form of punishment in consequence of the individuals criminal actions. Well yes, that's your position, to me it justifies my stance.
Then shall we move Charles Manson to live next to you? Again the state does not pay a fine - it pays restitution to the individual for the incorrect action by the state. I said that? If you read my post again, you'll notice that in extreme cases the privation of freedom should be accepted, only when all reason is lost (not forever should I say, but lost), specially if it's because of a patology.
Then why are you complaining about a law in the United States? Again the logic applies you don't like it campaign to get it changed that is how a democracy works. That's how a false processal democracy works, not a real one. In any case, Am I complaining about the policies of your state? No I'm talking in abstract.
The rest I will answer since I am at work. However you have not refuted nothing - only provided what you believe to be correct. Oh yes...when you see what I've written then you'll see that I've refuted you.
Soulforged
09-24-2005, 21:22
[QUOTE]You are almost 100% correct - however you are forgetting the base principle of punishment and justice. I will give a small hint - its not about rights? So you're telling me that punishment is about rights? Or did I misunderstood it?
Zero tolerance applies to those who commit horrendous crimes and show no compassion nor remorse in their actions. But that is just me. Well...this is a not return point for you...
Again you are missing the point - where do rights come from? It does not come from an inherient basis unless you are willing to discuss morals, ethics and yes again even a creator. And again I say to you :wall:...look there's two kind of law (or at least this is the better translation i can find): one being the positive one (the one made by society or the state) and one called natural law or equity (this comes from the essence of the natural individual, that's just recogniced by society not created by it, and all positive law must adjust to this, also this comes from phylosophic observation, we're not talking simply of what is good or bad here, the phylosophy sais "the human is free and exists", then the natural rights form around those precepts, predating all form of positive law), now if you want to deny all doctrine on law, then fine by me, but then the disscussion cannot continue.
Opinion - I have absolutely no problem with it - however it means I also don't agree with it. No it's not an opinion. Did you read my refutation from the point of view of the retribution? I clearly said that those individuals that you describe as rabid dogs have no guilt to expire, then what is the purpose of death? It's still retribution, it will be difficult for you to stand there, maybe you want to change now and accept prevention...I don't know. ~:confused:
You should be able to recongize it on your own by now. No please seriously, I'm really stupid and headstrong too, englighten me also I asked you where was that fallacy on the "emotional appeal" of my teacher.
[QUOTE=Redleg] So you're telling me that punishment is about rights? Or did I misunderstood it?
You misunderstood. Punishment is about the execution of the imposed sentence of the state for your actions. Law is based not on rights but morals and behaviors. You continue to attempt to deny morals having a place in both the justice system and punishment. I wonder if you understand what morals truely are. Here is a very neutral definition found in Websters.
1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL <moral judgments> b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem> c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation> e : capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>
2 : probable though not proved : VIRTUAL <a moral certainty>
3 : having the effects of such on the mind, confidence, or will <a moral victory> <moral support>
The foundation of law is about principles of right and wrong behavior - ie morals. Punishment for wrong behavior can include the deprivation of rights granted to the individual by the state - or society. Inherient rights can only come from a discussion of morals, ethics, and yes a creator. Man does not grant himself any inherient rights - society allows the individual to have rights until by his own actions society determines that his rights must be removed for the benefit of the society as a whole. We do this in the Justice System - the trail, the sentencing, and yes even the punishment aspects of it.
When someone argues against the death penalty they are not argueing from a stance of "rights" but from what they believe to be moral and ethical.
Well...this is a not return point for you...
In your opinion - does not equate the answer. You made a statement about Christians without knowing which you speak.
And again I say to you :wall:...look there's two kind of law (or at least this is the better translation i can find): one being the positive one (the one made by society or the state) and one called natural law or equity (this comes from the essence of the natural individual, that's just recogniced by society not created by it, and all positive law must adjust to this, also this comes from phylosophic observation, we're not talking simply of what is good or bad here, the phylosophy sais "the human is free and exists", then the natural rights form around those precepts, predating all form of positive law), now if you want to deny all doctrine on law, then fine by me, but then the disscussion cannot continue.
It seems to me that you wish to deny the basis in which law comes from - the regulation of behavior by the state. Natural Law is survival. Rights in the sense that you are trying to argue for do not come from nature. The law of survival is the only law that predates laws created by society.
No it's not an opinion. Did you read my refutation from the point of view of the retribution? I clearly said that those individuals that you describe as rabid dogs have no guilt to expire, then what is the purpose of death? It's still retribution, it will be difficult for you to stand there, maybe you want to change now and accept prevention...I don't know. ~:confused:
Again its opinion - nothing more - just like my views are primarily opinion. If your unwilling to discuss opinions then maybe you should not discuss anything. Again what is the purpose of the death of such individuals - its to provide retribution for their acts.
No please seriously, I'm really stupid and headstrong too, englighten me also I asked you where was that fallacy on the "emotional appeal" of my teacher.
Something for you to discover - I have already presented it to you in the best fashion that I can. If you don't want to accept it - then fine.
Soulforged
09-24-2005, 22:42
You misunderstood. Punishment is about the execution of the imposed sentence of the state for your actions. Law is based not on rights but morals and behaviors. You continue to attempt to deny morals having a place in both the justice system and punishment. I wonder if you understand what morals truely are. Here is a very neutral definition found in Websters. I understand very well the definition of morals, the problem seems to be that you're misplacing it in the system. Reaching the moment of punishment, or even all the analisys then the moral finishes on the justification, perhaps, but putting it on punishment level is incorrect. The problem is that if I accept your possition and let morals in, then the results will not be rational, it will be more like you're saying. So the morals can enter in the justification...maybe, doubtful, but maybe, to me it's more about other kinds of phylosophies, not the right or wrong. But do they've a place on punishment? Absolutely not. There's a lot of things to consider in penal process, none of them are morality.
The foundation of law is about principles of right and wrong behavior - ie morals. Punishment for wrong behavior can include the deprivation of rights granted to the individual by the state - or society. Inherient rights can only come from a discussion of morals, ethics, and yes a creator. Man does not grant himself any inherient rights - society allows the individual to have rights until by his own actions society determines that his rights must be removed for the benefit of the society as a whole. We do this in the Justice System - the trail, the sentencing, and yes even the punishment aspects of it. Again you're right, but only in principle. Not all behaviors can be punishable (as so many pretends), only the ones that damages others rights, thus something like drugging cannot be punishable. And man grants himself inherent rights when he reflexes about his own existence and essence, the society cannot force the individual to accept their own point of view, even less when this reflexives points of view are granted with the quality of imprescriptible, that you keep ignoring.
When someone argues against the death penalty they are not argueing from a stance of "rights" but from what they believe to be moral and ethical. Again all my explanation has nothing to do with morality. Though i believe it's morally wrong too, my arguments are about rights and law.
In your opinion - does not equate the answer. You made a statement about Christians without knowing which you speak. I know very well what I'm talking about, i.e punishment. However if you are talking about Christianity then let me explain you. For what I know Jesus always promulgated the acceptance of all the others and the policies of pardon, you're not accepting it, even for your moral point of view that i expected to be more like this guy Ieshua.
It seems to me that you wish to deny the basis in which law comes from - the regulation of behavior by the state. Natural Law is survival. Rights in the sense that you are trying to argue for do not come from nature. The law of survival is the only law that predates laws created by society. Again the society only recognices them, and natural law is not what you think it's. The natural law again comes from the individual essence of the man, not from any mental construct, it's only recogniced by it so the society cannot abuse of the individual. Killing him is an abuse.
Again its opinion - nothing more - just like my views are primarily opinion. If your unwilling to discuss opinions then maybe you should not discuss anything. Again what is the purpose of the death of such individuals - its to provide retribution for their acts. And again you're misunderstanding retribution or at least the technical sense of guilt. An individual that cannot conprehend nor orient his actions is not capable of culpability, for instance he's not guilty or at least his guilt is deminished for that pupose. Retribution is the expiration of guilt, that returns the health to society wich has been damaged, so where is the guilt in the "rabid dogs"? Now if you want to ignore this again then don't even bother to answer because the disscussion will never end if you try to deny everything.
Something for you to discover - I have already presented it to you in the best fashion that I can. If you don't want to accept it - then fine. You didn't presented me anything, you only gave me some wrong assumptions of what the natural law is. The natural law is not about good or bad, it's just about the "what exists", and not the moral quality of it. The human is free and exists, is this good or bad? I don't know, and for now this must be out of the discussion. Then the society recognices this "beings" and gives them form, in this form they include the word imprescriptible (with reason) and then in some cases the state or society decides to take them out. Is this good or bad? I don't know, but it's incorrect. And the ultimate punishment acceptable will be privation of freedom as an exception, death
penalty goes far beyond those atributions that the state gained.
It seems your attempting to prove me wrong - when in essence we are both correct. I have avoided complex searches and cut and paste of information because I am expressing my opinion. Which is exactly what you are doing.
It seems not everyone follows the concept your wanting to state - nor do they follow exactly what I am saying. We are discussing the two primary concepts of Punishment, rights and the law. THe actual application is a mix of it.
Here is a site on Canadian Law - notice how much agrees with what we are both saying.
http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/dept/pub/just/02.html
I know very well what I'm talking about, i.e punishment. However if you are talking about Christianity then let me explain you. For what I know Jesus always promulgated the acceptance of all the others and the policies of pardon, you're not accepting it, even for your moral point of view that i expected to be more like this guy Ieshua.
Again you do not know which you speak in reference to placing my thoughts about punishment and comparing it to Christianity as a whole as you did in your other statement. Jesus also stated give onto Ceaser what is Ceasers and given onto God what is God's. Justice and retribution for crimes against society - falls into that catergory. Forgiveness falls into the human aspect of forgiving the person for his crime. However that does not mean that the individual is granted a pass from suffering the consequences of his actions in the physical world.
You didn't presented me anything, you only gave me some wrong assumptions of what the natural law is. The natural law is not about good or bad, it's just about the "what exists", and not the moral quality of it. The human is free and exists, is this good or bad? I don't know, and for now this must be out of the discussion. Then the society recognices this "beings" and gives them form, in this form they include the word imprescriptible (with reason) and then in some cases the state or society decides to take them out. Is this good or bad? I don't know, but it's incorrect. And the ultimate punishment acceptable will be privation of freedom as an exception, death
penalty goes far beyond those atributions that the state gained.
Carefull there Soulforged Care to bet on who is making wrong assumptions.
The term 'natural law' is ambiguous. It refers to a type of moral theory, as well as to a type of legal theory, despite the fact that the core claims of the two kinds of theory are logically independent. According to natural law ethical theory, the moral standards that govern human behavior are, in some sense, objectively derived from the nature of human beings. According to natural law legal theory, the authority of at least some legal standards necessarily derives, at least in part, from considerations having to do with the moral merit of those standards. There are a number of different kinds of natural law theories of law, differing from each other with respect to the role that morality plays in determining the authority of legal norms.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/natlaw.htm
That is one definition of Natural Law. Its a philosophy.
Here is another definition of Natural Law
The medieval/legal definition: Natural law cannot be defined in the way that positive law is defined, and to attempt to do so plays into the hands of the enemies of freedom. Natural law is best defined by pointing at particular examples, as a biologist defines a species by pointing at a particular animal, a type specimen preserved in formalin. (This definition is the most widely used, and is probably the most useful definition for lawyers)
The historical state of nature definition: Natural law is that law which corresponds to a spontaneous order in the absence of a state and which is enforced, (in the absence of better methods), by individual unorganized violence, in particular the law that historically existed (in so far as any law existed) during the dark ages among the mingled barbarians that overran the Roman Empire.
The medieval / philosophical definition: Natural law is that law, which it is proper to uphold by unorganized individual violence, whether a state is present or absent, and for which, in the absence of orderly society, it is proper to punish violators by unorganized individual violence. Locke gives the example of Cain, in the absence of orderly society, and the example of a mugger, where the state exists, but is not present at the crime. Note Locke's important distinction between the state and society. For example trial by jury originated in places and times where there was no state power, or where the state was violently hostile to due process and the rule of law but was too weak and distant to entirely suppress it.
The scientific/ sociobiological/ game theoretic/ evolutionary definition: Natural law is, or follows from, an ESS for the use of force: Conduct which violates natural law is conduct such that, if a man were to use individual unorganized violence to prevent such conduct, or, in the absence of orderly society, use individual unorganized violence to punish such conduct, then such violence would not indicate that the person using such violence, (violence in accord with natural law) is a danger to a reasonable man. This definition is equivalent to the definition that comes from the game theory of iterated three or more player non zero sum games, applied to evolutionary theory. The idea of law, of actions being lawful or unlawful, has the emotional significance that it does have, because this ESS for the use of force is part of our nature.
http://jim.com/rights.html
And then there is the way I used it Natural Law being that of survival.
Notice how many times the use of the word morals and behavior is used.
Soulforged
09-25-2005, 02:31
It seems your attempting to prove me wrong - when in essence we are both correct. I have avoided complex searches and cut and paste of information because I am expressing my opinion. Which is exactly what you are doing. We cannot be both correct except on the acceptance of retribution as the only justification of punishment. All other subjects were so far, mutually exclusive.
It seems not everyone follows the concept your wanting to state - nor do they follow exactly what I am saying. We are discussing the two primary concepts of Punishment, rights and the law. THe actual application is a mix of it.
Here is a site on Canadian Law - notice how much agrees with what we are both saying.
http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/dept/pub/just/02.html First of all: I come from a codified system of justice, it's pretty different to yours. We've four sources of law (what we call derecho, directum from the latin) the custom (wich includes in part morality, because the custom has to be "good"), the law properly said (means statutes), the jurisprudence and the doctrine (free scientific work-free means that it not necessarilly must abide to the code or to the vigent law, if the scientist wants to criticize it then it's ok). From those sources the ones with more importance here will be like this: law, jurisprudence, doctrine (that's exchangable with jurisprudence from subject to subject) and finally custom. In your system the common law it will be like this: jurisprudence, custom, law (because you don't even have an codified justice system the law occuaptes a subsidiary possition) and doctrine. To Canada it's the same. Second: Reaching the stage of penal law, wich is the final and less wanted stage, the morals at least in my system an that of all continental Europe has only a place in that the court has to respect them, but the decisions should never be based on that. We've an old saying provided by Feurbach that goes: "nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege" (there's no crime, there's no punishmente with out law)- this means that there has to be a previous written, strict and concret law to punish somebody for a crime, this also forbids anallogy in penal matter (the anallogy is only allowed if it's benefitial to the suspect or convicted). In your system I doubt very much that this is applied (though it's a guarantee to the individual, so I presume that it's applied). Wich this forbids is the application of personal views on the matter, mostly limiting the arbitrarieness of the court or the mob. Third:
Rules made by government are called "laws." Laws are meant to control or change our behaviour and, unlike rules of morality, they are enforced by the courts. If you break a law - whether you like that law or not - you may have to pay a fine, pay for the damage you have done, or go to jail. This clearly sais when morality is out of the question (though Kant said this a few centuries ago). I never denied the influence of morality. But it's very different to let morality enter in civil or laboral matter than letting it enter penal matter.
Even in a well-ordered society, people have disagreements, and conflicts arise; the law provides a way to resolve disputes peacefully. If two people claim the same piece of property, rather than fight they turn to the law and the courts to decide who is the real owner and how the owner's rights are to be protected. Let me make an anarchist add on to this paragraph. Of course it resolves the matters peacefully because the state has the power of cohercion on their side. Every once in a while people seem to forget that is not us that makes this laws but another, a representative. The question of Castoriadis, Marx and Bakunin, (but expressely Castoriadis) always was: Why the individual has to abide to a law that he didn't agree with? The only answer to that is: well he's afraid of being called subversive, criminal or traitor, the only qualification that doesn't goes against the "Leviatan" is the second (though is some cases it goes against it too).
Laws help to ensure a safe and peaceful society in which people's rights are respected. The Canadian legal system respects individual rights, while at the same time ensuring that our society operates in an orderly manner. An essential principle is that the same law applies to everybody, including the police, governments and public officials, who must carry out their public duties according to the law. That's the problem respecting individual rights. Though maybe the Canadian system has a degree on that step, what is the situation of the ones that allow death penalty?
Again you do not know which you speak in reference to placing my thoughts about punishment and comparing it to Christianity as a whole as you did in your other statement. Jesus also stated give onto Ceaser what is Ceasers and given onto God what is God's. Justice and retribution for crimes against society - falls into that catergory. Forgiveness falls into the human aspect of forgiving the person for his crime. However that does not mean that the individual is granted a pass from suffering the consequences of his actions in the physical world. Ok, but I'm not talking about your scientific opinion, from your moral point of view: do you respect the death penalty? I will answer your other post when I come back.
bmolsson
09-25-2005, 04:35
There is no guarantee's - only proper reviews of the case to insure that the individuals rights were honored and that due process was followed.
And what is the retribution and responsibility after the review proves innocense ?
By following the due process in the criminal proceedings. If the due process is violated - you hold the individuals responsible for violating the due process for their actions.
I believe here we have the disagreement between us. You put the state above the individuals, I want to hold the institution as such to the same moral standard as the individuals. One of the most important points in a functional open democratic society is to keep the state and institutions accountable for their actions. The individuals working for the state are responsible to the state and not the individual they are prosecuting.
And what is the retribution and responsibility after the review proves innocense ?
The review process is researchable on the web. Its an ongoing process which for death penalty cases passes through several levels of review and appeall. If I remember the process correctly all death penalty cases have one automatic appeall to the next higher court.
If during this process the convicted individual is deemed to actually be innocent of the charges - the state releases him from custody. The process for restitution for the conviction is then between the individual and the state.
If due process was violated by the state - the individual within the state should be held responsible for thier violation. I believe this varies from country to country and within the United States it varies by state.
I believe here we have the disagreement between us. You put the state above the individuals, I want to hold the institution as such to the same moral standard as the individuals. One of the most important points in a functional open democratic society is to keep the state and institutions accountable for their actions. The individuals working for the state are responsible to the state and not the individual they are prosecuting.
I hold both equally accountable for their wrong doing.
Nor do I give the state a pass for making such a mistake - as stated not once but numerous times the state must make restitution for its error and ensure those individuals who violated the due process are punished for their violation of the due process. That is the only ability the state has to make restitution and face censor for a mistake. You believe this as holding the state above the individual - and in this you are incorrect. The state is an amoral being that functions within the expectations and warrants of the society in which it serves.
If the an individual serving the state violates the due process - the state must hold that individual responsible for his violation of that. That is the standard that the state must meet in regrads to responsiblity for a wrongful death. (This is what I have stated numerous times in different ways - and notice how it meets exactly what you have stated in this last quote.) The difference is you don't want the state to execute criminals found guilty in the court of law because of the possiblity of mistakes. I can respect such a position because it is based upon a moral value of the importance of life and the necessity of the state to be assured of its actions.
Your also attempting to equate what I have said to something that has not been stated by me.
Your asking about a spefic situation within the law, and I have stated that I believe that the death penality is an apporiate punishment and how I believe the state should handle cases that are of a horrendous nature - not simple manslaughter or negilence homicide - but multiple murders, raping a female and then killing her, and molesting a child and then killing the child. I have even stated much earlier that the death penality itself is to loosely applied in the state of Texas and needs to be reviewed. Killing someone in the course of a robbery does not necessary warrant the death penality - unless the state can prove that the individual did it to cover up his preformance of the crime - ie to kill any witnesses to his criminal activity. I hold these individuals to be deserving of the most severe punishment - if they are found guilty in a court of law for their crimes.
Soulforged
09-25-2005, 07:47
http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/natlaw.htm
That is one definition of Natural Law. Its a philosophy.
Here is another definition of Natural Law Well I said that morality has a place on justification of punishment, not in punisment in itself.
http://jim.com/rights.html
And then there is the way I used it Natural Law being that of survival.
Notice how many times the use of the word morals and behavior is used. And again I say... though I really don't want moral here, it appears that I really missed something, though the point is that morals are on the justification, or not? If there's this morals then how can the positive law given by the state surpase them? It's more on my favour than in yours. The justification of privation of freedom should be falling by now, no? Even more death penalty...But in any case you placed morality in a wrong possition, at punishability level.
bmolsson
09-25-2005, 12:56
The difference is you don't want the state to execute criminals found guilty in the court of law because of the possiblity of mistakes. I can respect such a position because it is based upon a moral value of the importance of life and the necessity of the state to be assured of its actions.
:bow:
Your also attempting to equate what I have said to something that has not been stated by me.
Your asking about a spefic situation within the law, and I have stated that I believe that the death penality is an apporiate punishment and how I believe the state should handle cases that are of a horrendous nature - not simple manslaughter or negilence homicide - but multiple murders, raping a female and then killing her, and molesting a child and then killing the child. I have even stated much earlier that the death penality itself is to loosely applied in the state of Texas and needs to be reviewed. Killing someone in the course of a robbery does not necessary warrant the death penality - unless the state can prove that the individual did it to cover up his preformance of the crime - ie to kill any witnesses to his criminal activity. I hold these individuals to be deserving of the most severe punishment - if they are found guilty in a court of law for their crimes.
Not my intention. I am only highlighting the difficulties in a western society to have the death penalty since it is so permantent.
As mentioned before, even if I am principally against death penalty, I have no problem to understand and sympatize with your opinions of the use. There are criminals that can't be re-educated or be allowed to be in a modern society.
Well I said that morality has a place on justification of punishment, not in punisment in itself.
If morality has a place in the justification of something - then morality is part of punishment.
And again I say... though I really don't want moral here, it appears that I really missed something, though the point is that morals are on the justification, or not? If there's this morals then how can the positive law given by the state surpase them?
I like Thomas Paine's thought on this from Common Sense so I will use it in response to your question.
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.
http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm
It's more on my favour than in yours. The justification of privation of freedom should be falling by now, no? Even more death penalty...But in any case you placed morality in a wrong possition, at punishability level.
Maybe so - but to leave morality out of the equation is also the wrong position to take in my humble opinion.
Soulforged
09-25-2005, 18:32
If morality has a place in the justification of something - then morality is part of punishment. One thing is to decide what punishment the subject will receive, other thing is to decide it's intensity, other is to decide if the individual is punishable, and finally the other and most important is to say why can we do all this I just did?
I like Thomas Paine's thought on this from Common Sense so I will use it in response to your question.
Maybe so - but to leave morality out of the equation is also the wrong position to take in my humble opinion. Thomas Paine is absolutelly right (except that he doesn't clearifies the lasting of the necessary evil, wich in my case is not that necessary, only appears like it), but again if the same government sais that the persons have an inherent freedom (or liberty), and also the right to exist, and also sais that they're imprescriptible and inanienable, then, how can the same government take out those rights...if they're imprescriptible and inanianable...
One thing is to decide what punishment the subject will receive, other thing is to decide it's intensity, other is to decide if the individual is punishable, and finally the other and most important is to say why can we do all this I just did?
Not sure if I follow your position here.
Thomas Paine is absolutelly right (except that he doesn't clearifies the lasting of the necessary evil, wich in my case is not that necessary, only appears like it), but again if the same government sais that the persons have an inherent freedom (or liberty), and also the right to exist, and also sais that they're imprescriptible and inanienable, then, how can the same government take out those rights...if they're imprescriptible and inanianable...
The justice system is what allows the government to do this. Again quoting Thomas Paine - the whole context of the statemetn is above.
Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.