Yet another case that shows why the death penalty is such a bad idea

Quote:

---

Posted by Pindar
Going with your feelings: if Hitler had been captured, it would have been wrong to execute him? Is this your view?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAG

It should be everyone's view.

---

Killing in self defence is always justified

ceasar010: "And another question are you a pacifist?"

Yes...

Killing in self defence is always justified

---

JAG,

Your comments are a non sequitur writ large.

removal of "colorful" language - Ser Clegane

Xiahou, well if he's trying to escape or something, it's all good. But he could be easily turned into a martyr if killed "Osama's in (whatever the Jihadist's heaven is) with his whole bunch of virgins, yay, let's all join him". Not that that isn't already happening... Hmm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I don't know that it's so black and white. The American revolution was about protecting our rights, property and self-determination. You call it an offensive attack, I think it's a matter of saying 'enough is enough'.

---

Saying 'enough is enough' is fine, but the Revolution was an offensive act. Theoretically this should be clear. Practically it is also obvious. Lexington and Concord, the first engagements of the Revolution, were militia attacking British troops on the march.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Pindar, Equity is considered the basis of justice. Justice is considered the basis of law. A society of law is superior to barbarism in that it creates a uniform standard whereby order can be maintained, security instilled, fairness documented and peace abound.

---

Where does the death penalty fit into this? It creates equity- without such equity (executions) there can be no justice? You're going to have to do more that just say it's so to convince me. Give me something concrete. You can have uniform standards and equal treatment under the law without executions.

---

Recall your question: "Pushing that aside, what is the benefit to this ethereal notion of "equity"? " The above is a brief explanation of the 'benefit' of equity. It is the basis of justice systems and has been so for literally millennia of intellectual history. CP, also concerned with justice, fits into this rubric.

Now I have already explained the whys and wherefores of equity, but I can give an explanation again if you would like. Equity refers to redress. It refers to a basic owed status. If I steal someone's cow, justice demands I return the cow or its equivalent value. If I seize anything not my own the same dynamic applies. Taking someone's life (murder) is a theft of the thing most personal to the self. How does one give redress? By losing one's own life, nothing else can compare in value.

Uniform standards are no guarantee of justice. One may think uniformity is a necessary condition for justice, but alone it is not sufficient.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAG

EDIT: removal of "colorful" language - Ser Clegane

---

JAG, don't be vulgar. If you cannot put forward a rational and defensible view, best avoid the discussion.

EDIT: I concur - Ser Clegane

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

See, I might disagree just a bit there. I think they can be killed, if it's determined to be for the greater good.

---

This would seem to undercut your opposition to CP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

Pindar, yes, Hitler should not have been killed.

Killing in self defense, war, and assassination of a legitimate target (Osama or Hitler, for example), is to be avoided, but in the end, acceptable.

---

These two statements seem strained.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

This would seem to undercut your opposition to CP.

---

Not in my mind.
Like I've said, I'm opposed to needless or senseless death. If people are being blown up because were have Osama in prison, I'd say it'd be time to reevaluate that. I'm not so naive as to think that our civilization can exist without some deaths- they had just better be for good reason. Self-defense, was my clearest example of that.

I'm sure even you'd agree that if we had our druthers, everyone would be happy and live in peace and harmony- we both know that's not possible, at least on this world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

These two statements seem strained.

---

How so? I am against the principal of war and assassinations, but I know that it has to happen sometimes, especially in the case of genocide etc. Someone who is in custody, unarmed, and isn't a direct threat is totally different from killing someone who is armed and dangerous and trying to kill people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

How so? I am against the principal of war and assassinations, but I know that it has to happen sometimes, especially in the case of genocide etc.

---

Then why dont you support iraq, That dictator ship killed hundreds of thousands of people

Because at the beggining of the war, it seemed to me that the people of Iraq would be hurt more by an invasion. In addition, there were (and still are) many other murderos nuts, and it seems hypocritical to just go after one.
Now that we are in Iraq, I believe it would be far more harmful to pull out. It doesn't mean that I support the war, however.

Quote:

---

Uniform standards are no guarantee of justice. One may think uniformity is a necessary condition for justice, but alone it is not sufficient.

---

If we assume that justice relies on more than just uniformity, does that mean uniformity is not necessary for justice? If that isn't what the statement means, I do not understand the inclusion of "but". Please, explain. (I understand the appeal to some other moral authority. What if that moral authority only includes uniformity as the requirment for justice?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Saying 'enough is enough' is fine, but the Revolution was an offensive act. Theoretically this should be clear. Practically it is also obvious. Lexington and Concord, the first engagements of the Revolution, were militia attacking British troops on the march.

---

Yes, but what were they on the march to do? It certainly wasn't a parade....

Quote:

---

Recall your question: "Pushing that aside, what is the benefit to this ethereal notion of "equity"? " The above is a brief explanation of the 'benefit' of equity. It is the basis of justice systems and has been so for literally millennia of intellectual history. CP, also concerned with justice, fits into this rubric.

---

Simply stating that equity is the basis of criminal justice doesn't prove it so.

Quote:

---

Now I have already explained the whys and wherefores of equity, but I can give an explanation again if you would like. Equity refers to redress. It refers to a basic owed status. If I steal someone's cow, justice demands I return the cow or its equivalent value. If I seize anything not my own the same dynamic applies. Taking someone's life (murder) is a theft of the thing most personal to the self. How does one give redress? By losing one's own life, nothing else can compare in value.

---

Replacing one's cow vs killing yourself is not the same. There's no compensation in the murders death. When you replace a cow, you have your posession back. When you execute a murderer, the murdered is still dead. All you've achieved is killing yet another person. There's no compensating someone for being dead, because no matter what you do they're still dead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Not in my mind.
Like I've said, I'm opposed to needless or senseless death. If people are being blown up because were have Osama in prison, I'd say it'd be time to reevaluate that. I'm not so naive as to think that our civilization can exist without some deaths- they had just better be for good reason. Self-defense, was my clearest example of that.

I'm sure even you'd agree that if we had our druthers, everyone would be happy and live in peace and harmony- we both know that's not possible, at least on this world.

---

Interesting, so you have a qualified acceptance of CP. CP as an expediency is OK (kill bin Laden to stop bombings). Is that right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Yes, but what were they on the march to do? It certainly wasn't a parade....

---

I hope the larger point (revolutions are offensive acts) isn't going to get lost in the details. The British column was marching to secure an armory because they feared bloodshed may be in the near future: given the Boston Tea Party an other attacks had already occurred.

This tangent began because you said something akin to: war could only be justified if it were self defense (suggesting responding to an attack). I have pointed to the birth of the nation as an offensive act. Therefore one must either condemn the Revolution or reconsider the initial view.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The Good Guys The above is a brief explanation of the 'benefit' of equity. It is the basis of justice systems and has been so for literally millennia of intellectual history. CP, also concerned with justice, fits into this rubric.

---

Simply stating that equity is the basis of criminal justice doesn't prove it so.

---

I don't understand this. Are you challenging the historical point? If so, please refer to the Code of Hammurabi, the Mosaic Law, the Athenian Constitution or any Greek city state, Roman Law (say the Code of Justinian) on down to the birth of the U.S. I am unaware of any judicial code that does not refer to equity as a cardinal principle.

If this is meant to suggest you will put forward a non-equity based jurisprudence: please do so.

Quote:

---

Replacing one's cow vs killing yourself is not the same. There's no compensation in the murders death. When you replace a cow, you have your posession back. When you execute a murderer, the murdered is still dead. All you've achieved is killing yet another person. There's no compensating someone for being dead, because no matter what you do they're still dead.

---

I have not advocated killing yourself.

Quite right, there is no compensating the dead, you cannot give them back their metaphorical cow: it has been permanently erased and that is the point. Their murder is infinite in scope. They will not be coming back, ever. This infinite loss reflects back on the murderer. A debt is owed the murdered A dept is owed the state whose citizen was killed, and a dept is owed his Creator who is the source of life (assuming theological appeals have some quarter). The administrator of justice is the state therefore it is left to the state to collect on the dept. The nature of that collection must be a comparable loss: the murderer gave up the right to his own life when he took another's. This is the nature of justice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

How so? I am against the principal of war and assassinations, but I know that it has to happen sometimes...

---

If "it" sometimes has to happen that would suggest some justification of the principle and call into question opposition to the principle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Interesting, so you have a qualified acceptance of CP. CP as an expediency is OK (kill bin Laden to stop bombings). Is that right?

---

Little in the world is in clear black & white. As I've said, there must be exceptions for the greater good. Killing civillians in bad, I think we can agree- yet, the bombing of Hiroshima was justified to end the war.

Quote:

---

I hope the larger point (revolutions are offensive acts) isn't going to get lost in the details. The British column was marching to secure an armory because they feared bloodshed may be in the near future: given the Boston Tea Party an other attacks had already occurred.

This tangent began because you said something akin to: war could only be justified if it were self defense (suggesting responding to an attack). I have pointed to the birth of the nation as an offensive act. Therefore one must either condemn the Revolution or reconsider the initial view.

---

I think the larger point was lost from the beginning on this line of argument. I never said war could only be justified in response to an attack. Personally, I thought the argument was something of a red herring.

Quote:

---

I don't understand this. Are you challenging the historical point? If so, please refer to the Code of Hammurabi, the Mosaic Law, the Athenian Constitution or any Greek city state, Roman Law (say the Code of Justinian) on down to the birth of the U.S. I am unaware of any judicial code that does not refer to equity as a cardinal principle.

---

I don't see the need to challenge your historical argument. We no longer cut the hands from theives, stone prostitutes or hang horse thieves. All of these have a historical basis, none are practiced today, and yet we still have a functioning justice system.

Quote:

---

Quite right, there is no compensating the dead, you cannot give them back their metaphorical cow: it has been permanently erased and that is the point. Their murder is infinite in scope. They will not be coming back, ever. This infinite loss reflects back on the murderer. A debt is owed the murdered A dept is owed the state whose citizen was killed, and a dept is owed his Creator who is the source of life (assuming theological appeals have some quarter). The administrator of justice is the state therefore it is left to the state to collect on the dept. The nature of that collection must be a comparable loss: the murderer gave up the right to his own life when he took another's. This is the nature of justice.

---

I don't know your religion, but mine doesn't teach that God demands an eye for an eye or a life for a life.

A bit off topic but on the news last night they were disscussing Saddams trial and sentencing. The people of Irq said the only question is do they hang him as murderer or shoot him as a miltary criminal. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

A bit off topic but on the news last night they were disscussing Saddams trial and sentencing. The people of Irq said the only question is do they hang him as murderer or shoot him as a miltary criminal. ~;)

---

Fine with me, if that's what they decide to do. I don't think that country will ever be able to move beyond Saddam's reign of terror while he's still alive. ~:cheers:

Hmm. I thought he was being held in America... he's being tried in Iraq? Or am I confused here?

Quote:

---

Uniform standards are no guarantee of justice. One may think uniformity is a necessary condition for justice, but alone it is not sufficient.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

If we assume that justice relies on more than just uniformity, does that mean uniformity is not necessary for justice? If that isn't what the statement means, I do not understand the inclusion of "but". Please, explain. (I understand the appeal to some other moral authority. What if that moral authority only includes uniformity as the requirment for justice?)

---

---

Necessity and sufficiency are logical conditions. Necessity applies to a standard that cannot be otherwise for some X, but cannot produce the X alone. For example: one must attend class in order to graduate, but it doesn't follow that simple attendance guarantees graduation. Sufficiency means all required conditions for X have been met. For example: reciting the Shahada in faith, "There is no God, but Allah and Muhammad is His prophet" is sufficient to be considered Muslim.

Now relating this to jurisprudence: uniformity may be a standard one appeals to when setting out a code of justice, but uniformity alone does not guarantee justice.

Quote:

---

Hmm. I thought he was being held in America... he's being tried in Iraq? Or am I confused here?

---

You are indeed confused. We are niether Trying him nor holding him. We transfered him to the Iraqis long ago with great fanfare I might add.

Ah. Well, thanks for clearing that up. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I don't see the need to challenge your historical argument. We no longer cut the hands from theives, stone prostitutes or hang horse thieves. All of these have a historical basis, none are practiced today, and yet we still have a functioning justice system.

---

Our semi-functioning justice system does not reject equity as a judicial standard. Punishment itself is based on this principle. Attempts at direct or comparable redress are the standard. With murder there is nothing comparable save the equal death of the murderer.

Quote:

---

I don't know your religion, but mine doesn't teach that God demands an eye for an eye or a life for a life.

---

Your God may not demand such, but the Traditional understanding of the Judeo-Christian God certainly does. Christians typically recognize both the Old and New Testaments (NT) as canonical. There is no prohibition or rejection of CP in the NT. Quite the contrary: Romans 1: 32 would serve as an example:

"Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

Further, the whole thrust of the Atonement is that Christ takes the just retribution for sin upon Himself being clean, so that those who would otherwise qualify as condemned can yet be redeemed.

Thus, the general interpretation of Christian theology upholds an equity standard. Secular government does as well.

Quote:

---

Necessity and sufficiency are logical conditions. Necessity applies to a standard that cannot be otherwise for some X, but cannot produce the X alone. For example: one must attend class in order to graduate, but it doesn't follow that simple attendance guarantees graduation. Sufficiency means all required conditions for X have been met. For example: reciting the Shahada in faith, "There is no God, but Allah and Muhammad is His prophet" is sufficient to be considered Muslim.

---

You are quite right. Lol, I believe I have shown that posting under the influence is not a good idea ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Our semi-functioning justice system does not reject equity as a judicial standard. Punishment itself is based on this principle. Attempts at direct or comparable redress are the standard. With murder there is nothing comparable save the equal death of the murderer.

---

Semi-functioning? Because we don't stone prostitutes, or for some other reason?

Quote:

---

Your God may not demand such, but the Traditional understanding of the Judeo-Christian God certainly does. Christians typically recognize both the Old and New Testaments (NT) as canonical. There is no prohibition or rejection of CP in the NT. Quite the contrary: Romans 1: 32 would serve as an example:

---

Yes, both are recognized, but the NT supercedes the OT.

Quote:

---

Thus, the general interpretation of Christian theology upholds an equity standard. Secular government does as well.

---

I disagree. Retribution, perhaps- not equity.

I recently read an article entitled "Catholicism & Capital Punishment" by Cardinal Dulles which I found quite interesting. I won't do it the disservice of posting excerpts nor do I want to fill this page quoting it's entirity- I would encourage anyone interested to read it here. I find myself agreeing with most of what he writes, particularly on the modern view of the state.

If not for the death penalty there probably would be no such thing as Christianity. ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

You are quite right. Lol, I believe I have shown that posting under the influence is not a good idea ~:cheers:

---

~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Semi-functioning? Because we don't stone prostitutes, or for some other reason?

---

Semi-functioning because of all the nasty things that go on in the name of justice. I see this stuff up close and personal all the time.

Quote:

---

Yes, both are recognized, but the NT supercedes the OT.

---

The Book of Romans is in the NT. The NT does not reject CP nor did any major strand of Christianity until the Modern Period.

Quote:

---

I disagree. Retribution, perhaps- not equity.

---

Retribution is equity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Semi-functioning because of all the nasty things that go on in the name of justice. I see this stuff up close and personal all the time.

---

I don't doubt that. Nor do I think it's anything new.

Quote:

---

Retribution is equity.

---

Retribution is punishment, not necessarily equity. How do you feel about the different 'levels' of murder? Manslaughter, 1st, 2nd, 3rd degree homicide? Should they all be executed? If not, where is the equity?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Retribution is punishment, not necessarily equity.

---

Retribution literally means to pay back. It therefore has an implicit sense of something owed: some needed redress.

Equity means: balanced, even, equal.

To retribute a thing is therefore to return to balance.

Quote:

---

How do you feel about the different 'levels' of murder? Manslaughter, 1st, 2nd, 3rd degree homicide? Should they all be executed? If not, where is the equity?

---

Murder implies intent. Only 1st and 2nd degree are considered murder: both are in the ball park. Manslaughter is accidental though negligent death. Given manslaughter is the absence of intent I would generally say execution is not necessary. This is the standard view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Socialism breeds dependency and apathy through the avoidance of responsibility. It is not the government's job to look after people. It's people's job to look after each other. Bureaucracies are not moral agents.

---

a) If it is not the government's job to look after people, what right do they have to govern peoples lives at all?

b)What moral force does the government have in getting involved in peoples lives if not for looking out for the people?

c) What would you think of a socialistic system that was geared to create individuals who are independent and engaged in society?

Thank you very much Pape. :bow: The government doesn't really have any point if not to help people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

a) If it is not the government's job to look after people, what right do they have to govern peoples lives at all?

b)What moral force does the government have in getting involved in peoples lives if not for looking out for the people?

c) What would you think of a socialistic system that was geared to create individuals who are independent and engaged in society?

---

Any concept of justice that sacrifices the individual for societal ends will ultimately become destructive in practice. In general, individuals will do what works, and not do what doesn't work. If human actions are meaningless, they will not bother to act. We must have a reasonable assurance that our actions will bring results, and that those results can be at least guessed at. In society there is a desperate need for cause and effect. We do not live in a universe lacking in cause and effect, and mans history is the search for exactly this.

We as humans, order our own societies, and we need this to be true in our social groupings, just as in nature. If society does not recognize and render significant the link between human actions and their consequences, then our society will descend into chaos. There needs to be a guarantee that our actions for good or ill, will have meaning.

This is the collectivists (socialism and its mean cousin communism) greatest weakness as it severs the link between individual action and the benefits of those actions. That individuals who did not act, should benefit from the actions of others. This is the reason for the recent implosions of collectivist societies worldwide. Communism at its essence is immoral and unjust. If we do not recognize 'Free Will' and moral responsibility in men, then we are not discussing justice at all.

This does not mean that the state has no role but it does mean that the greater its role the more harm it will eventually do. We, as a society, must balance the harm done by the potential for good.

Collectivism fails because of natural human selfishness and greed. To minimise government is to pander to this human nature and let it have the run of the place. Human nature cannot be relied upon to produce results that are beneficial for the greater population, because that it the exact opposite of what it is motivated by.

I believe in the greatness of human potential, but we always have, and always will, require governing. This is not a nanny mentality, just an observation based on the entire history of humankind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Retribution literally means to pay back. It therefore has an implicit sense of something owed: some needed redress.

Equity means: balanced, even, equal.

To retribute a thing is therefore to return to balance.

---

How do you arrive at that conclusion? Yes, retribution is to 'pay back' in the simplest terms, but it does not have to mean equal 'pay back'.

Quote:

---

Murder implies intent. Only 1st and 2nd degree are considered murder: both are in the ball park. Manslaughter is accidental though negligent death. Given manslaughter is the absence of intent I would generally say execution is not necessary. This is the standard view.

---

Ok, now this is interesting. In your view there should be no equity in cases of manslaughter or 3rd degree murder? As to the "standard view", in this country I'm not aware of second degree murderers being eligible for the death penalty either- no equity there either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

There are currently no society that offers equality before the law. :book:

---

Is this a complete and utter ignorance on your behalf or simply a poor attempt of sarcasm?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

JAG, don't be vulgar. If you cannot put forward a rational and defensible view, best avoid the discussion.

EDIT: I concur - Ser Clegane

---

"Will minus intellect constitutes vulgarity." Arthur Schopenhauer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

a) If it is not the government's job to look after people, what right do they have to govern peoples lives at all?

---

Government has no right to govern people's lives. Government exists at the behest of the governed: its terms and conditions are determined by the same. Government is a construct.

Quote:

---

b)What moral force does the government have in getting involved in peoples lives if not for looking out for the people?

---

The essential justification for government from the Enlightenment forward has been protection. This means protection against the predatory practice of other groups (polities), and internal threats (criminals). To use Hobbes phrase, life in the absence of government would be: "nasty, brutish and short". One may consider this rationale a moral force, but it is more akin to a simple expediency. Arguing a moral basis for government involvement is problematic from a secular perspective.

Quote:

---

c) What would you think of a socialistic system that was geared to create individuals who are independent and engaged in society?

---

A collectivist system geared to create individuals...hmmm.

Despite the stickiness of the above, I do think I have an idea of what you are aiming for. The founders of the American Revolution were deeply concerned with justifying a move toward democracy. Recall, democracy was not a new idea, but it was a rejected idea. Most saw democracy as mobocracy: the unruly masses lack the wherewithal for self governance. The Founders argued that freedom could be justified to the degree that freedom was used to instill the necessary virtue to govern society: freedom for freedom's sake was an absurdity. Notions of the good and the individuals essential role were paramount concerns. The good and its attendant virtues appealed to the Judeo-Christian Tradition. This is one of the reasons they made reference to natural law with language like: unalienable rights. From this perspective government does not create morality, indeed cannot create morality, rather it creates the space through which moral agents arise. A simple example of this was Jefferson's Anti-Federalism. This agrarian model saw that the development of the moral man required independence from government bureaucracy and dependency. The citizen who can properly guide the state cannot be a slave to it. This is one of the reasons Jefferson was so keen on the Louisiana Purchase as it would provide the space where men could live and develop free of government intrusion: corruption and sycophancy.

Socialist models as they are typically put forward with their command economies and collectivist mentality are an assault on the very basis of the moral which begins with the subject, the "I".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

How do you arrive at that conclusion? Yes, retribution is to 'pay back' in the simplest terms, but it does not have to mean equal 'pay back'.

---

So if I owe ten dollars and pay back one then I have fulfilled my obligation? Obviously not. Retribution is to return what is owed, not a portion thereof.

Quote:

---

Ok, now this is interesting. In your view there should be no equity in cases of manslaughter or 3rd degree murder? As to the "standard view", in this country I'm not aware of second degree murderers being eligible for the death penalty either- no equity there either.

---

There is no such thing as 3rd degree murder: note homicide and murder are not the same. Murder requires intent.

Retributive systems operate off of what is owed. To owe a thing is usually tied to a chosen or assumed obligation. A forced contract is not binding for example. Accidents, by definition are unforeseen, unexpected and unwanted events. Cases of manslaughter are accidents, but some negligence is assigned: it should not have occurred. The 'should' indicates that redress is required, but the absence of actual intent suggests the ultimate penalty may not be necessary. Each case needs its own evaluation. For example, a father who falls asleep while driving gets into an accident. He is hospitalized and his two young daughters are killed. This could fall under Manslaughter. The man should not have fallen asleep, but these deaths are not the same as the victims of an assassin. Law and justice recognizes a distinction. The key in making the distinction is the intent.

Murder is a state specific crime. How it is adjudicated in each state is its own affair. I don't know the particulars of each state. Our concern is with the concept of CP more than the practice. Even so, I can tell you that many DAs will move a 2nd Degree crime to 1st Degree status if they think it was egregious enough. For example a man catches his wife cheating: he then kills the wife, her lover and their 5 children. This is a crime of passion, but the DA can try it as a 1st Degree case if he wishes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharrukin

This is the collectivists (socialism and its mean cousin communism) greatest weakness as it severs the link between individual action and the benefits of those actions. That individuals who did not act, should benefit from the actions of others. This is the reason for the recent implosions of collectivist societies worldwide. Communism at its essence is immoral and unjust. If we do not recognize 'Free Will' and moral responsibility in men, then we are not discussing justice at all.

This does not mean that the state has no role but it does mean that the greater its role the more harm it will eventually do. We, as a society, must balance the harm done by the potential for good.

---

Well said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Actually it wasn't a bad assertment. Look at Michael Jackson and OJ. Were those trials equal before the law to, say, the Trial of some druggy off the street?

Even the best systems have a ways to go yet.

---

You should note the original statement is exhaustive. It is claiming equity before the law doesn't exist: i.e. there is no justice.

I'm thinking of some sort of synthesis of the socialistic and capitalistic models of old.

When I think of socialistic democracies they are there to serve the people. Protect them from having a bad start or minimising the consequences accidents of nature. They are not there to remove the choices or consequences of their choices. The government is more a social protection from others, and like most things prevention is better then cure.

They are there to provide education (an uneducated citizen is not a good thing for a democracy, nor should ones parents wealth determine ones access to education as that is a caste system), health (immunisation), police (these should be independent of any corporation), military (of all things giving ones life for the rest of the society is a very social (not individual) thing to do).

The economy can still be a regulated capitalistic model. Regulated in the sense that if a consumer wants to know what the product is they can find out... the buyer has the ability to access information to remain aware of the consequences of buying the product. That the true cost of producing the item is payed for by the producer & buyer not subsidised by others (pollution in one sense is the rest of society subsidising a business that does not pay for its production clean up).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

So if I owe ten dollars and pay back one then I have fulfilled my obligation? Obviously not. Retribution is to return what is owed, not a portion thereof.

---

No, one dollar wouldn't be acceptable to me- but then again, I wouldn't call you repaying a personal loan retribution either. Of course, I couldn't really sue over a matter $10 either so I guess you could rip me off if you wanted. Either way, I don't see where you're going with this. ~:confused:

Quote:

---

There is no such thing as 3rd degree murder: note homicide and murder are not the same. Murder requires intent.

---

No such thing? Let's have a look....
PA Criminal Code Title 18, Section 2, Chapter 25, - 2502 "Murder":

(a) Murder of the first degree.-A criminal homicide constitutes murder of the first degree when it is committed by an intentional killing.

(b) Murder of the second degree.-A criminal homicide constitutes murder of the second degree when it is committed while defendant was engaged as a principal or an accomplice in the perpetration of a felony.

(c) Murder of the third degree.-All other kinds of murder shall be murder of the third degree. Murder of the third degree is a felony of the first degree.

I think you're wrong.

Quote:

---

Retributive systems operate off of what is owed. To owe a thing is usually tied to a chosen or assumed obligation. A forced contract is not binding for example. Accidents, by definition are unforeseen, unexpected and unwanted events. Cases of manslaughter are accidents, but some negligence is assigned: it should not have occurred. The 'should' indicates that redress is required, but the absence of actual intent suggests the ultimate penalty may not be necessary. Each case needs its own evaluation. For example, a father who falls asleep while driving gets into an accident. He is hospitalized and his two young daughters are killed. This could fall under Manslaughter. The man should not have fallen asleep, but these deaths are not the same as the victims of an assassin. Law and justice recognizes a distinction. The key in making the distinction is the intent.

---

Where's all this coming from? Each case needs its own evaluation? What of equity? Doesn't God, the State, and the universe in general demand equity?

Quote:

---

Murder is a state specific crime. How it is adjudicated in each state is its own affair. I don't know the particulars of each state. Our concern is with the concept of CP more than the practice. Even so, I can tell you that many DAs will move a 2nd Degree crime to 1st Degree status if they think it was egregious enough. For example a man catches his wife cheating: he then kills the wife, her lover and their 5 children. This is a crime of passion, but the DA can try it as a 1st Degree case if he wishes.

---

So , do you reject the idea of second degree murderers being ineligible for death?

Because of the direction the thread has gone - I think it is necessary to have some of the posters on this subject refer and define what they think Criminal Justice is:

From reading some of the previous posts - there seems to be some confusion on that point. I posted this earlier - but here it is again.

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Criminal_justice

Quote:

---

Theories
There are several basic theories regarding criminal justice and its relation to individual rights and social control:

Restorative justice assumes that the victim or their heirs or neighbors can be in some way restored to a condition "just as good as" before the criminal incident. Substantially it builds on traditions in common law and tort law that requires all who commit wrong to be penalized. In recent time these penalties that restorative justice advocates have included community service, restitution, and alternatives to imprisonment that keep the offender active in the community, and re-socialized him into society. Some suggest that it is a weak way to punish criminal who must be deterred, these critics are often proponents of


Retributive justice or the "eye for an eye" approach. Assuming that the victim or their heirs or neighbors have the right to do to the offender what was done to the victim. These ideas fuel support for capital punishment for murder, amputation for theft (as in some versions of the sharia).

Psychiatric imprisonment treats crime nominally as illness, and assumes that it can be treated by psychoanalysis, drugs, and other techniques associated with psychiatry and medicine, but in forcible confinement. It is more commonly associated with crime that does not appear to have animal emotion or human economic motives, nor even any clear benefit to the offender, but has idiosyncratic characteristics that make it hard for society to comprehend, thus hard to trust the individual if released into society.

Transformative justice does not assume that there is any reasonable comparison between the lives of victims nor offenders before and after the incident. It discourages such comparisons and measurements, and emphasizes the trust of the society in each member, including trust in the offender not to re-offend, and of the victim (or heirs) not to avenge.
In addition, there are models of criminal justice systems which try to explain how these institutions achieve justice.

The Consensus Model argues that the organizations of a criminal justice system do, or should, cooperate.
The Conflict Model assumes that the organizations of a criminal justice system do, or should, compete.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

No, one dollar wouldn't be acceptable to me- but then again, I wouldn't call you repaying a personal loan retribution either. Of course, I couldn't really sue over a matter $10 either so I guess you could rip me off if you wanted. Either way, I don't see where you're going with this. ~:confused:

---

The point I was making is that justice is tied to equity. This means redress and/or restoration to the original state prior to there being anything owed. This applies to contracts and depts, including owing the state for taking another's life. One cannot restore the life of the murdered, but one can demonstrate a proper redress through a like sacrifice of the guilty.

Quote:

---

No such thing? Let's have a look....
PA Criminal Code Title 18, Section 2, Chapter 25, - 2502 "Murder":

(a) Murder of the first degree.-A criminal homicide constitutes murder of the first degree when it is committed by an intentional killing.

(b) Murder of the second degree.-A criminal homicide constitutes murder of the second degree when it is committed while defendant was engaged as a principal or an accomplice in the perpetration of a felony.

(c) Murder of the third degree.-All other kinds of murder shall be murder of the third degree. Murder of the third degree is a felony of the first degree.

I think you're wrong.

---

I confess, I do not know the penal code of Pennsylvania. The point I was trying to make was that manslaughter and murder are usually considered distinct.

Quote:

---

Where's all this coming from? Each case needs its own evaluation? What of equity? Doesn't God, the State, and the universe in general demand equity?

---

God, the State and the universe in general do demand equity. I think you do to. You expect to be paid for working, you expect contracts to be fulfilled, you expect punishment for wrong action. Of course all cases need evaluation. To determine if something is owed or a wrong committed is an evaluation. To determine the nature of the wrong is also an evaluation. To determine a judgment is to apply an evaluation. Now, to admit that not all killing is the same I think is obvious. My view is CP is a just verdict for murder. My original point was that if a society believes there are acts so heinous that no return to society is possible, it is better, more humane, to kill the guilty than torture through life in prison.

You asked my opinion of various degrees of murder. Degree or similar classification takes the discussion out of the conceptual arena to a practical Jurisprudence. Or at least that is how I took it. In the U.S. States control their own penal code. My position is not dependant on the reality of any jurisprudence. It is focused on the more base notion of justice. Even so, I tried to answer your question.

Quote:

---

So , do you reject the idea of second degree murderers being ineligible for death?

---

I think all murder is eligible for death. Murder typically implies intent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Because of the direction the thread has gone - I think it is necessary to have some of the posters on this subject refer and define what they think Criminal Justice is:

---

I believe justice is at its base retributive. This includes restoration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I confess, I do not know the penal code of Pennsylvania. The point I was trying to make was that manslaughter and murder are usually considered distinct.

---

It's not just PA, I picked it because it's my home state. But, your point is understood. However, my point that equity is not possible or even desirable in all cases is clear.

Quote:

---

You asked my opinion of various degrees of murder. Degree or similar classification takes the discussion out of the conceptual arena to a practical Jurisprudence. Or at least that is how I took it. In the U.S. States control their own penal code. My position is not dependant on the reality of any jurisprudence. It is focused on the more base notion of justice. Even so, I tried to answer your question.

---

Indeed, the USA, and by extension its people, controls it's own penal code. We have collectively disregarded the idea of 'life for a life' as a requirement for all cases. The debate remaining is on what crimes are heinous enough that the person perpetrating these acts must be executed. I think they are very few. You would seem to think they are most. Having both laid out our cases, I am content to leave it there. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

. However, my point that equity is not possible or even desirable in all cases is clear.

---

I disagree. Redress can be given where required.

Quote:

---

Indeed, the USA, and by extension its people, controls it's own penal code. We have collectively disregarded the idea of 'life for a life' as a requirement for all cases. The debate remaining is on what crimes are heinous enough that the person perpetrating these acts must be executed. I think they are very few. You would seem to think they are most. Having both laid out our cases, I am content to leave it there. :bow:

---

Justice is a harsh taskmaster and not all who claim fealty to her are willing to carry out her will. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Justice is a harsh taskmaster and not all who claim fealty to her are willing to carry out her will. :bow:

---

Thats pretty good! Can I quote you on that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I believe justice is at its base retributive. This includes restoration.

---

That is my belief also about Criminal Justice - Its not about reform but about retribution for your actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharrukin

Thats pretty good! Can I quote you on that?

---

Sure. ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

That is my belief also about Criminal Justice - Its not about reform but about retribution for your actions.

---

I agree. Punishment as a principle presupposes responsibility. Responsibility indicates a knowledge of right vs. wrong conduct.

I uh just wanted to rez this topic to make a quick point. How is it that we are executing people who may be innocent, yet the BTK killer, who confessed to murdering ten, only got life?


WHAT THE F :furious3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Albino Gorilla

I uh just wanted to rez this topic to make a quick point. How is it that we are executing people who may be innocent, yet the BTK killer, who confessed to murdering ten, only got life?


WHAT THE F :furious3:

---

You will have to call Witcha, Kansas and talk to the DA there and ask him why he cut such a deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

You will have to call Witcha, Kansas and talk to the DA there and ask him why he cut such a deal.

---

From what I could piece together, they could not ask for the death penalty because Kansas did not have capital punishment at the time his crimes were committed.

I may be wrong though. Anybody else know?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

From what I could piece together, they could not ask for the death penalty because Kansas did not have capital punishment at the time his crimes were committed.

---

You would be correct - Kansas did not have the death penalty as law during the time frame of the killings.

Quote:

---

I may be wrong though. Anybody else know?

---

That is the most logical reason for why the DA chose not do pursue the death penalty - and he has stated so in the news.

A rant often deserves a smart hoofed mammal reply. ~D