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

[Xiahou]

I am not making a legal argument. The use of 'right' implies moral force. Are you challenging that the state has the right to kill?

Do you really think I am arguing for arbitrary killing? Has anything I've posted suggested the state can simply remove any and all at its leisure? The point revolves around base notions of justice and civil mandate. This should be obvious. With capital punishment I have argued that if there are such cases where the guilty are considered beyond reprieve and thereby would not be allowed to return to society then death is the proper conclusion. The simple working example has been cases of murder where a base equity can be demonstrated. I think I have been consistent in arguing this point.

You weren't arguing for arbitrary killing by the state, but you did make the case for it in your arguments with the notion that the state has the unquestionable right to kill

I have not argued imprisonment alone equals torture. I have argued that life in prison where there is no possible return is cruel and unusual punishment. I have also argued that in such cases death is more humane and proper.

Were it life in solitary confinement, I might agree that it's torture- but lifetime solitary confinement fell out of popular practice long ago as far as I know. I argue that prisons should be harsher, but I don't see any benefit to driving prisoners insane in absolute solitude- nor do I see any benefit to justify killing them.

Does this mean those who served in the Continental Army shouldn't have fired their weapons and thereby 'forced death on others for (their) principles?' Better they simply sacrificed themselves?

So we're back to this again? Killing on the battlefield is not equivalent to killing defenseless prisoners. I can't honestly believe you don't see a difference.

#Given recent confusion: no. I'm not justifying vigilantism here. Killing is a state authorized function.

Based on that, we would have no disagreement. But I part ways when you claim that a state has an absolute right to kill and that it is moral for a state to do so regardless of the circumstances.

[Papewaio]

Pindar you dodged the question. Are you stating that all bar 3 democracies in the world are morally inferior because they do not use the death penalty?

[Pindar]

Pindar you dodged the question. Are you stating that all bar 3 democracies in the world are morally inferior because they do not use the death penalty?

I didn't reply because I didn't think it was a serious question.

Of course! Any nation that rejects capital punishment is morally inferior. I Consider socialism and its attendant baggage as morally inferior. It is just one more example of the feminization of societies that comfortable in their cafes do not understand the reality of evil. Capital punishment has been the standard for jurisprudential thought since the rise of Civilization. The reason being, it is almost impossible to come up with a sound understanding of law and punishment without it. Capital punishment is directly tied to equity which is the basis for law.


"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Orwell.

[kiwitt]

I didn't reply because I didn't think it was a serious question.

Of course! Any nation that rejects capital punishment is morally inferior. I Consider socialism and its attendant baggage as morally inferior. It is just one more example of the feminization of societies that comfortable in their cafes do not understand the reality of evil.

It sounds as if you believe "women" have no right to influence the world. They have been ignored for many centuries and still are today in many cultures. Are you saying that women's influence should not be accepted because they are inferior. This is very similar thinking to "Islam" and some "Christian" and other religions, in the superiority of Men.

Man first, Women second. That is very arrogant thinking. Countless centuries of war can be traced in part to men's arrogance that they are superior.

Women should be respected fully, what they bring to the world. Unless you think they are only useful for 2 things: breeding an cleaning, like some men think.

[Crazed Rabbit]

*Ding Ding Ding!*
Congrats! You win the red herring award! Either that or you misunderstood him.

What he was talking about when he said 'feminization' related not to women, but to a pacifistic response of intellectual elites who have never experienced that which they preach about. They think they can remove evil from the world by ignoring it.

Crazed Rabbit

[Kanamori]

Yes, the right exists, but what are the criteria that must be met in order for the death penalty to be viable. I see a problem in the way it is carried out. There ought to be some standard so it is given out equally. Right now, it's whichever lawyer can give a more passionate speech to the jury. And no, before it's brought up, I don't support Judges giving it out, because I could see that as a very likely question or implication.

Edit: It can be put into the social contract that its citizen's are not to be put to death, but that isn't the case.

[Pindar]

Yes, the right exists, but what are the criteria that must be met in order for the death penalty to be viable. I see a problem in the way it is carried out. There ought to be some standard so it is given out equally. Right now, it's whichever lawyer can give a more passionate speech to the jury. And no, before it's brought up, I don't support Judges giving it out, because I could see that as a very likely question or implication.

Implementation and the base right are distinct. I have no problem with applying a high degree of rigor to the process so as to help eliminate error and instill fairness. I don't think that means abandoning the Adversarial Judicial System or trial by a group of one's peers however.

[Pindar]

*Ding Ding Ding!*
Congrats! You win the red herring award! Either that or you misunderstood him.

What he was talking about when he said 'feminization' related not to women, but to a pacifistic response of intellectual elites who have never experienced that which they preach about. They think they can remove evil from the world by ignoring it.

Crazed Rabbit

Thank you for stating what should have been obvious.

[Papewaio]

I didn't reply because I didn't think it was a serious question.

Of course! Any nation that rejects capital punishment is morally inferior. I Consider socialism and its attendant baggage as morally inferior. It is just one more example of the feminization of societies that comfortable in their cafes do not understand the reality of evil. Capital punishment has been the standard for jurisprudential thought since the rise of Civilization. The reason being, it is almost impossible to come up with a sound understanding of law and punishment without it. Capital punishment is directly tied to equity which is the basis for law.

Have you been possessed by Navaros lately?

I don't equate feminisation with lack of Capital punishment. It is quite a sexist, offensive and uncivilised notion to think that women and men are not equal.

Nor drinking coffee with not wanting the death penalty. If it was that simple to get rid of violent tendancies then we would put all offenders on a Cafe Latte Anger Management program.

The world used to be the center of the Universe. Just because something used to be the standard of old does not automatically mean it is the standard now. To say something is okay because it is traditional is to limit ones advancement. If the law is to be just, it would have to be current. Things like slavery where once just.

Capital punishment is about equity, fair enough. What happens to the balance of equity when an innocent is incorrectly sentenced? What ratio of guilty true to guilty untrue balances out this equity? At least with a life sentence if new evidence comes to light that finds the prisoner not guilty he can belatedly regain some of his life. Until you can raise the dead I suggest that carrying out the death sentence is not necessarily the most equitable solution nor the most harsh.

Also when you do get the right person does equity exist if that person has already killed more the one other. Sure you can kill the serial killer or terrorist but he has already killed 5, 10, 50, 3000 others. Can equity be gained by killing them?

The State has the right to do something, does not mean it is the right thing to do.

Any nation that rejects capital punishment is morally inferior. I Consider socialism and its attendant baggage as morally inferior.

Was this a jibe or a serious response? What is wrong with socialism as practiced by democratic governments running a capitalistic economy? I always thought they work hand in hand rather well, as the strengths and weaknesses of each are mitgated and they can be used to strengthen each other. Also what kind of civilisation can you call it that seeks not to look after its weakest? The issue I have with some flavours of socialism are those that remove competition and make social welfare a life style choice rather then an emergency option or a long term option for those who have served their country (pensions etc). Other issues are when socialism goal becomes instead of raising intedependent and intradependent members it creates hordes of zombie dependents who never get out of that rut. Ultimately a good social system should mitigate the harshest times and get people the skills to climb to their fullest potential.

[Pindar]

Have you been possessed by Navaros lately?

That's a scary thought.

I don't equate feminisation with lack of Capital punishment. It is quite a sexist, offensive and uncivilised notion to think that women and men are not equal.

You missed the point. Feminization does not refer to gender equality.

Capital punishment is about equity, fair enough. What happens to the balance of equity when an innocent is incorrectly sentenced?

If the innocent are condemned that is a miscarriage of justice. If the innocent die due to friendly fire or collateral damage on the battlefield that is also a tragedy, but it does not deter one from prosecuting a just war. All systems fail in some regard. The foibles of men are what they are. If a man condemned to a life sentence lives out that sentence and then after the fact new evidence comes to light showing his innocence that is also a miscarriage of justice. Judicial systems and the decisions contained therein must be concerned with the facts at hand, not fear of an inability to give redress if some unknown factor changes the whole equation. One cannot prove a negative nor base a system of justice upon it.

Also when you do get the right person does equity exist if that person has already killed more the one other. Sure you can kill the serial killer or terrorist but he has already killed 5, 10, 50, 3000 others. Can equity be gained by killing them?

Yes.

The State has the right to do something, does not mean it is the right thing to do.

Yes it does. Rights language implies moral force.

Was this a jibe or a serious response?

Both.

What is wrong with socialism as practiced by democratic governments running a capitalistic economy?.... Also what kind of civilisation can you call it that seeks not to look after its weakest?

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

[Papewaio]

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

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

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

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

[Steppe Merc]

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

[sharrukin]

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.

[Pindar]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pindar]

You weren't arguing for arbitrary killing by the state, but you did make the case for it in your arguments with the notion that the state has the unquestionable right to kill

I have made no case for arbitrary killing.

The state does have a right to kill. The military is a simple example. The police would be another.

Were it life in solitary confinement, I might agree that it's torture- but lifetime solitary confinement fell out of popular practice long ago as far as I know. I argue that prisons should be harsher, but I don't see any benefit to driving prisoners insane in absolute solitude- nor do I see any benefit to justify killing them.

The benefit to capital punishment is it provides redress. This is the basis for punishment.

So we're back to this again? Killing on the battlefield is not equivalent to killing defenseless prisoners. I can't honestly believe you don't see a difference.

State killing is state killing. Whether this applies to an external threat or an internal one: it is the same.

Based on that, we would have no disagreement. But I part ways when you claim that a state has an absolute right to kill and that it is moral for a state to do so regardless of the circumstances.

I have never argued the state can kill regardless of circumstance.

[Xiahou]

I have made no case for arbitrary killing.

The state does have a right to kill. The military is a simple example. The police would be another.

State killing is state killing. Whether this applies to an external threat or an internal one: it is the same.

I have never argued the state can kill regardless of circumstance.

Do these statements seem inconsistent to anyone else?

State killing is state killing? Enemy soldiers, criminals, POWs, old people, babies? All equal and all good and moral so long as the state does it.

[Pindar]

Posted by Pindar
I have made no case for arbitrary killing.

The state does have a right to kill. The military is a simple example. The police would be another.

State killing is state killing. Whether this applies to an external threat or an internal one: it is the same.

I have never argued the state can kill regardless of circumstance.

XiahouDo these statements seem inconsistent to anyone else?

Where is the inconsistency?

[sharrukin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
I have made no case for arbitrary killing.

The state does have a right to kill. The military is a simple example. The police would be another.

State killing is state killing. Whether this applies to an external threat or an internal one: it is the same.

I have never argued the state can kill regardless of circumstance.

Do these statements seem inconsistent to anyone else?

State killing is state killing? Enemy soldiers, criminals, POWs, old people, babies? All equal and all good and moral so long as the state does it.

"I have never argued the state can kill regardless of circumstance."

No inconsistency that I can see!
The state has the right to kill, as do individuals based on the circumstances.

Some killing is not morally wrong, and some killing is.

[kiwitt]

Looking at Killing individuals what is the lowest level you will think it is right to kill someone for their crime

Genocidal Leader (Hundreds, thousands, millions)
Mass-Murderer (Dozens, hundreds, thousands i.e. terrorist)
Serial Killer (Multiple; One/two at a time)
Child-Rapist Murderer
Rapist Murderer
Assassin (Specific Target - Unknown - for money)
Murderer (Specific Target - Known - revenge)
Assault/Robber/Burglar Murder (In the act of committing a crime)
Crime of Passion (Lovers Triangle, etc.)
Metally impaired Murderer
Drunk Driver / Speeding Driver killing
Accidental killing (Negligent)
Adulterer (no one dead)
Drug Courier (no one dead)

While against the "Death Penalty" for reasons outlined above. If it was to be enforced, I would probably support "Rapist Murderers" and worse being executed.

[sharrukin]

Looking at Killing individuals what is the lowest level you will think it is right to kill someone for their crime

YES
Genocidal Leader (Hundreds, thousands, millions)
Mass-Murderer (Dozens, hundreds, thousands i.e. terrorist)
Serial Killer (Multiple; One/two at a time)
Child-Rapist Murderer
Rapist Murderer
Assassin (Specific Target - Unknown - for money)

Revenge for what? (probably a YES)
Murderer (Specific Target - Known - revenge)

Dependent on the exact circumstances.
Assault/Robber/Burglar Murder (In the act of committing a crime)
Crime of Passion (Lovers Triangle, etc.)

NO
Metally impaired Murderer
Drunk Driver / Speeding Driver killing
Accidental killing (Negligent)
Adulterer (no one dead)
Drug Courier (no one dead)

[Voigtkampf]

Do these statements seem inconsistent to anyone else?

Not in the least.

Don't let yourself be blinded by political correctness.

[Xiahou]

Not in the least.

Don't let yourself be blinded by political correctness.

Political correctness has nothing to do with it. You can't reasonably say that the state can't arbitrarily kill people, then in the same breath claim that the state has a right to kill people and it makes no difference what the reason- state killing is state killing no matter what.

It's an absurd position- if the state has a 'right to kill', then it has the right to kill anyone. If it has limitations then its not a right- nor does it have a damn thing to do with the death penalty debate. As I've said- I'm well aware that capital punishment is legal, I think it's useless and uneccessary killing. It serves no purpose other than revenge- unless you subscribe to the 'eye for an eye' notion where some karmic imbalance is created and the world spins off its axis unless a murdered is killed- life for a life.

[sharrukin]

Political correctness has nothing to do with it. You can't reasonably say that the state can't arbitrarily kill people, then in the same breath claim that the state has a right to kill people and it makes no difference what the reason- state killing is state killing no matter what.

It's an absurd position- if the state has a 'right to kill', then it has the right to kill anyone. If it has limitations then its not a right- nor does it have a damn thing to do with the death penalty debate. As I've said- I'm well aware that capital punishment is legal, I think it's useless and uneccessary killing. It serves no purpose other than revenge- unless you subscribe to the 'eye for an eye' notion where some karmic imbalance is created and the world spins off its axis unless a murdered is killed- life for a life.

Well, first off, every right has limits. There is no such thing as an unlimited right.

The right of free speech is limited. No yelling fire in a crowded theatre.
The right to own property is limited. Eminent domain.
The right to vote is limited. No 6 year olds, or inmates allowed.
The right to the pursuit of happiness. You have to catch it first, it doesn't get handed to you.
The right to freedom of association. Terrorists not included.
The right to life. Capital punishment, the draft, robbing a bank.

There are limits on all of them.

Out of interest.
If justice does not incorporate any elements of vengeance, then what is it to you?

I assume Ted Bundy who killed close to 40 women is not going to get community service or a $500 fine in your system of justice, but why not?

If vengeance isn't at least a part of it and Brazil said they would take him as a talk show host, why not accept exile for him?

I ask because you don't seem to think justice and vengeance are related.

[Xiahou]

Out of interest.
If justice does not incorporate any elements of vengeance, then what is it to you?

I assume Ted Bundy who killed close to 40 women is not going to get community service or a $500 fine in your system of justice, but why not?

If vengeance isn't at least a part of it and Brazil said they would take him as a talk show host, why not accept exile for him?

I ask because you don't seem to think justice and vengeance are related.

It's pretty simple really- you imprison people to keep them from endangering the general population. Our government shouldn't be in the revenge business. Some criminals, however, commit such heinous crimes that we cannot afford to risk to have them loosed on society again- thus life sentencing. Obviously, the reason for non-life offenders being imprisoned is also a deterrant type of punishment.

Sending Bundy to Brazil would be unconscionable on our part, as we already know him to be a violent, murderous psychopath and all around scumbag.

[Voigtkampf]

Political correctness has nothing to do with it. You can't reasonably say that the state can't arbitrarily kill people, then in the same breath claim that the state has a right to kill people and it makes no difference what the reason- state killing is state killing no matter what.

Your logic is flawed. I have both legal and moral right to kill someone in defense who is trying to murder me for the content of my wallet. That doesn’t mean I have the right to kill anyone arbitrarily. Same applies to the state.

It's an absurd position- if the state has a 'right to kill', then it has the right to kill anyone.

Actually, you own position is absurd. The state derives its right to kill as punishment for the criminals or in war from many legal, ethical and moral sources, the greatest of them being the society itself that needs to be protected from its foes, internal and external. Its “right” to arbitrarily kill without any constrain would be derived solely from its power to do so, unlike the prior example. There is no logical conclusion that “right to kill” equals “right to kill arbitrarily”. Please refer back to my first example above.

If it has limitations then its not a right- nor does it have a damn thing to do with the death penalty debate.

That is, with all due respect, plain wrong. There is no such thing as an “unlimited” right. All of our rights have boundaries. One of the most famous law sayings about rights goes “My rights end where the nose of another person begins.” I have right to protect my property. I don’t have a right to shoot someone down who just might happen to try and steal/damage my property. I believe other similar examples have been named, no need to elaborate on this anymore.

As I've said- I'm well aware that capital punishment is legal, I think it's useless and uneccessary killing.

Then again, your logic has made place to emotions.

It serves no purpose other than revenge- unless you subscribe to the 'eye for an eye' notion where some karmic imbalance is created and the world spins off its axis unless a murdered is killed- life for a life.

Again, not true.

Capital punishment, like many other forms of punishments, have several functions.

1. Removes the ability of the perpetrator to repeat his crime. In case of death penalty, forever.
2. Retribution/compensation. Most important issue. Returns the faith in law, justice, equity, ethics and moral. Restores the balance of the society as much as possible. Despite what you think, it is a most important issue, perhaps the most important.
3. Intimidation effect. Over this one, one could argue for days, but it shouldn’t be a day’s work to figure out most of the people obey law only out of the fear of punishment. When I go speeding down the highway and see cops, I don’t slow down because I feel the ethical or moral repercussions; I slow down because I am afraid of the consequences in the shape of a large money fee that I will have to pay if I get caught. Same principle, larger stakes.

There are more, but these are nicely rounded up and are in every fundamental law book there is.

[Steppe Merc]

So if Adolf Hitler had escaped to South America on a submarine, we would be wrong to send someone to finish him off?

Assassination is different from execution.