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

[Gawain of Orkeny]

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

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

[Steppe Merc]

Ah. Well, thanks for clearing that up.

[Pindar]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kanamori]

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

[Xiahou]

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

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

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

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

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

I disagree. Retribution, perhaps- not equity.

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

[Gawain of Orkeny]

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

[Pindar]

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

[Pindar]

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

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

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

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

I disagree. Retribution, perhaps- not equity.

Retribution is equity.

[Xiahou]

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

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

Retribution is equity.

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

[Pindar]

Retribution is punishment, not necessarily equity.

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

Equity means: balanced, even, equal.

To retribute a thing is therefore to return to balance.

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

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

[Papewaio]

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.

[Roark]

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.

[Xiahou]

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

Equity means: balanced, even, equal.

To retribute a thing is therefore to return to balance.

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

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

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

[Voigtkampf]

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

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

[Voigtkampf]

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

[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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pindar]

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.

[Pindar]

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

Even the best systems have a ways to go yet.

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

[Papewaio]

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).

[Xiahou]

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.

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

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

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

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

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

I think you're wrong.

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

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

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

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

[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:

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

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Criminal_justice

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

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


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

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

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

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

[Pindar]

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.

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

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

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

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

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

I think you're wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pindar]

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.

[Xiahou]

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

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

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

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

[Pindar]

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

I disagree. Redress can be given where required.

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

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

[sharrukin]

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

Thats pretty good! Can I quote you on that?

[Redleg]

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.