Options

Capital Punishment thread

17810121318

Posts

  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    titmouse wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    titmouse wrote: »
    there is nothing emotional about evil motherfuckers should pay
    What logical reason is there for wanting that?

    the logic that specific conduct should incur specific consequences.

    I don't see how what something should be is logical.

    i was under the impression that we were talking about logic in terms of "reasoning" (as opposed to emotion), not "logic" in terms of mathematical proof.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Servo wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    titmouse wrote: »
    alternatively, should people be rewarded for bad behavior if it will not cause future instances of bad behavior?
    Give an example of bad behavior that won't cause future instances of bad behavior?

    that's easy.

    girl is gang raped by three guys. a year later, she tracks each of them down and kills them.

    unless you think she will be gang raped again, she simply doesnt need to be deterred from murder ever again.
    nope. since your example is entirely hypothetical, i'm just going to say that she ends up killing men for sport, having acquired a taste for blood.

    prove me wrong!

    you didnt understand titmouse's point did you? when one asks for a hypothetical, they are implying that there is no possible situation in which the proposed situation occurs. ive given a realistic hypothetical and now we debate the principles and the concepts.

    when one asks for a hypo and then one is given, giving another competing hypo is the most useless response.
    The problem is that your hypothetical is so highly unlikely and requires so many circumstances in order for it to not cause any future bad behavior that it is a pretty shitty hypothetical.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Servo wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Servo wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    titmouse wrote: »
    alternatively, should people be rewarded for bad behavior if it will not cause future instances of bad behavior?
    Give an example of bad behavior that won't cause future instances of bad behavior?

    that's easy.

    girl is gang raped by three guys. a year later, she tracks each of them down and kills them.

    unless you think she will be gang raped again, she simply doesnt need to be deterred from murder ever again.
    nope. since your example is entirely hypothetical, i'm just going to say that she ends up killing men for sport, having acquired a taste for blood.

    prove me wrong!

    you didnt understand titmouse's point did you? when one asks for a hypothetical, they are implying that there is no possible situation in which the proposed situation occurs. ive given a realistic hypothetical and now we debate the principles and the concepts.

    when one asks for a hypo and then one is given, giving another competing hypo is the most useless response.

    except that your 'hypo' was pretty fucking useless to begin with, huh?

    no, it wasn't useless. titmouse was making a good point. he was saying, if conceptually, there is no possible bad behavior that doesnt spawn more bad behavior, then the point i am making is meaningless. this is a good point.

    to which i respond, conceptually, there is a possibility of one instance of bad behavior that doesnt spawn more bad behavior in the future. this is a good response.

    explaining things to dimwitted people is tiring. please try to keep up.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    titmouse wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    titmouse wrote: »
    there is nothing emotional about evil motherfuckers should pay
    What logical reason is there for wanting that?

    the logic that specific conduct should incur specific consequences.

    I don't see how what something should be is logical.

    i was under the impression that we were talking about logic in terms of "reasoning" (as opposed to emotion), not "logic" in terms of mathematical proof.
    Why should specific conduct incur specific consequences? Just because you think it would be nice does not mean it is logical.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited August 2007
    titmouse wrote: »
    as such, their prosecutors only really attempt to prosecute "slam dunk" cases
    That is a huge problem because it end with the crimes that are hard to prove like rape getting mostly ignores.

    I think this article basically sums up what is wrong with the Japanese justice system.
    http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8680941
    Oh Michael Crichton, you cad. I'll never read your books again.

    Hacksaw on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    titmouse wrote: »
    as such, their prosecutors only really attempt to prosecute "slam dunk" cases
    That is a huge problem because it end with the crimes that are hard to prove like rape getting mostly ignores.

    I think this article basically sums up what is wrong with the Japanese justice system.
    http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8680941
    Oh Michael Crichton, you cad. I'll never read your books again.

    Huh?

    Couscous on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    titmouse wrote: »
    The problem is that your hypothetical is so highly unlikely and requires so many circumstances in order for it to not cause any future bad behavior that it is a pretty shitty hypothetical.

    on what basis are you asserting that it is unlikely? i thought you were saying that revenge is so likely that we have to take active steps to restrict it.

    besides, even if it were unlikely, it is possible. hence the concept being discussed is still valid.

    you want to talk about unlikely? a perfectly innocent man being executed is about the textbook definition of unlikely. yet, anti-capital punishment people bring that silly crap up all the time.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    ServoServo Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Servo wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Servo wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    titmouse wrote: »
    alternatively, should people be rewarded for bad behavior if it will not cause future instances of bad behavior?
    Give an example of bad behavior that won't cause future instances of bad behavior?

    that's easy.

    girl is gang raped by three guys. a year later, she tracks each of them down and kills them.

    unless you think she will be gang raped again, she simply doesnt need to be deterred from murder ever again.
    nope. since your example is entirely hypothetical, i'm just going to say that she ends up killing men for sport, having acquired a taste for blood.

    prove me wrong!

    you didnt understand titmouse's point did you? when one asks for a hypothetical, they are implying that there is no possible situation in which the proposed situation occurs. ive given a realistic hypothetical and now we debate the principles and the concepts.

    when one asks for a hypo and then one is given, giving another competing hypo is the most useless response.

    except that your 'hypo' was pretty fucking useless to begin with, huh?

    no, it wasn't useless. titmouse was making a good point. he was saying, if conceptually, there is no possible bad behavior that doesnt spawn more bad behavior, then the point i am making is meaningless. this is a good point.

    to which i respond, conceptually, there is a possibility of one instance of bad behavior that doesnt spawn more bad behavior in the future. this is a good response.

    explaining things to dimwitted people is tiring. please try to keep up.


    yeah, you're really the jesse owens to my adolph hitler over here

    Servo on
    newsigs.jpg
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    titmouse wrote: »
    The problem is that your hypothetical is so highly unlikely and requires so many circumstances in order for it to not cause any future bad behavior that it is a pretty shitty hypothetical.

    on what basis are you asserting that it is unlikely? i thought you were saying that revenge is so likely that we have to take active steps to restrict it.

    besides, even if it were unlikely, it is possible. hence the concept being discussed is still valid.

    you want to talk about unlikely? a perfectly innocent man being executed is about the textbook definition of unlikely. yet, anti-capital punishment people bring that silly crap up all the time.

    Ummmm, we know that innocent men have been killed in the past. We know that people have been released weeks before they were to be executed. We know that our justice system is not flawless and can make mistakes. It is the textbook definition of almost certain to happen.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    ServoServo Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    titmouse wrote: »
    The problem is that your hypothetical is so highly unlikely and requires so many circumstances in order for it to not cause any future bad behavior that it is a pretty shitty hypothetical.

    on what basis are you asserting that it is unlikely? i thought you were saying that revenge is so likely that we have to take active steps to restrict it.

    besides, even if it were unlikely, it is possible. hence the concept being discussed is still valid.

    you want to talk about unlikely? a perfectly innocent man being executed is about the textbook definition of unlikely. yet, anti-capital punishment people bring that silly crap up all the time.

    at least sixteen men just might wanna disagree with you

    Servo on
    newsigs.jpg
  • Options
    HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited August 2007
    titmouse wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    titmouse wrote: »
    as such, their prosecutors only really attempt to prosecute "slam dunk" cases
    That is a huge problem because it end with the crimes that are hard to prove like rape getting mostly ignores.

    I think this article basically sums up what is wrong with the Japanese justice system.
    http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8680941
    Oh Michael Crichton, you cad. I'll never read your books again.

    Huh?
    In Rising Sun one of the main characters praises the effectiveness and efficiency of the Japanese justice system, and how it was far and away so superior to ours. Turns out he was just obscuring all the bad stuff and heavily hyperbolizing the "good" stuff (like citing the 99% conviction rate without bothering to mention that most crimes are not prosecuted on evidence gathered but rather confession obtained, be it real or not).

    Also he's a shitty writer.

    Hacksaw on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    titmouse wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    titmouse wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    titmouse wrote: »
    there is nothing emotional about evil motherfuckers should pay
    What logical reason is there for wanting that?

    the logic that specific conduct should incur specific consequences.

    I don't see how what something should be is logical.

    i was under the impression that we were talking about logic in terms of "reasoning" (as opposed to emotion), not "logic" in terms of mathematical proof.
    Why should specific conduct incur specific consequences? Just because you think it would be nice does not mean it is logical.

    the reasoning behind rewarding certain actions and punishing others is the cornerstone of human society. man "owns" property because he "infuses" effort into it. working hard, brushing your teeth, being nice to your brother - every instance of human social interaction is centered around attempting to create a society where certain actions cause certain events, where events are logical. our justice system is no different. crime x results in punishment x, crime y in punishment y. why is that the case?

    you realize the opposite position is that specific actions dont incur specific consequences. one person steals a cake and gets 10 years, another steals a similar cake and gets a $5000 reward. this is the essence of non-logic and what i am arguing against.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    ServoServo Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »

    you realize the opposite position is that specific actions dont incur specific consequences. one person steals a cake and gets 10 years, another steals a similar cake and gets a $5000 reward. this is the essence of non-logic and what i am arguing against.

    except that eliminating the death penalty wouldn't be the same thing as giving a murderer five thousand dollars. it would be the same thing as sending him to prison for life.

    Servo on
    newsigs.jpg
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    the reasoning behind rewarding certain actions and punishing others is the cornerstone of human society
    It helps prevent crime and enforces behavior the society sees as good. Therefore, any punishment should be made with the aim of preventing future crimes rather than just for the sake of punishing that person.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    titmouse wrote: »
    you want to talk about unlikely? a perfectly innocent man being executed is about the textbook definition of unlikely. yet, anti-capital punishment people bring that silly crap up all the time.

    Ummmm, we know that innocent men have been killed in the past. We know that people have been released weeks before they were to be executed. We know that our justice system is not flawless and can make mistakes. It is the textbook definition of almost certain to happen.

    are we talking about perfectly innocent or michael jackson innocent?

    all joking aside, how many "innocent" men were simply guilty men who would have gotten off on technicalities? or men who were guilty of various other crimes but not necessarily for all of the crimes they were being prosecuted for at the time?

    if your definition of "certain to happen" means, will and has happened, then i dont see why a revenge murder doesnt fall into the same category as "certain to happen".

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    ServoServo Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2007
    Servo wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    titmouse wrote: »
    The problem is that your hypothetical is so highly unlikely and requires so many circumstances in order for it to not cause any future bad behavior that it is a pretty shitty hypothetical.

    on what basis are you asserting that it is unlikely? i thought you were saying that revenge is so likely that we have to take active steps to restrict it.

    besides, even if it were unlikely, it is possible. hence the concept being discussed is still valid.

    you want to talk about unlikely? a perfectly innocent man being executed is about the textbook definition of unlikely. yet, anti-capital punishment people bring that silly crap up all the time.

    at least sixteen men just might wanna disagree with you

    i mean, they'd like to, but seeing as how they were wrongly put to death by the state, they don't have internet access

    Servo on
    newsigs.jpg
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    or men who were guilty of various other crimes but not necessarily all of the crimes he was being prosecuted for at the time?
    Being guilty of something does not mean that you should be able to be executed for a crime you didn't commit. That goes against your belief that specific actions should have specific punishments. If he is punished for something he didn't do, he would still be getting a specific punishment for specific actions he did not commit. Whether or not he is guilty of something else does not matter in any way.
    if your definition of "certain to happen" means, will and has happened, then i dont see why a revenge murder doesnt fall into the same category as "certain to happen".
    You didn't get my point, did you? I meant that what she did was just as likely to cause another revenge murder as the men raping her did. Prosecuting her for her crimes prevents a revenge murder from happening. Your hypothetical requires that nobody gave a shit about the deaths of the men nor the revenge killing. In this day and age, the media would pick it up and run with it. I wasn't disputing the fact that revenge murder happens. I was disputing the possibility of a revenge murder happening and nobody giving a shit.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    titmouse wrote: »
    the reasoning behind rewarding certain actions and punishing others is the cornerstone of human society
    It helps prevent crime and enforces behavior the society sees as good. Therefore, any punishment should be made with the aim of preventing future crimes rather than just for the sake of punishing that person.

    and this is where we disagree. rewarding good behavior and punishing bad is not only about the incentive effect. it is also about the actual happiness of the person being rewarded or the actual suffering of the person being punished. im not only concerned with how well society functions. the happiness and suffering of people matters to me as well.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    titmouse wrote: »
    the reasoning behind rewarding certain actions and punishing others is the cornerstone of human society
    It helps prevent crime and enforces behavior the society sees as good. Therefore, any punishment should be made with the aim of preventing future crimes rather than just for the sake of punishing that person.

    and this is where we disagree. rewarding good behavior and punishing bad is not only about the incentive effect. it is also about the actual happiness of the person being rewarded or the actual suffering of the person being punished. im not only concerned with how well society functions. the happiness and suffering of people matters to me as well.

    And how is that logical? It does not help society function and it does not increase the overall happiness of society by executing a person. What is the reasoning behind wanting that?

    Couscous on
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    What good does retribution do? What use does it have?

    So far as I can tell, the only use it has is to deter future criminals, with the exception of the context of imprisonment or capital punishment, where it's also used to remove convicted criminals from society at large.

    Making "the goal" out to be punishing criminals seems to miss the point. Punishing criminals is a component of something that's much larger. To be willing to sacrifice innocent people for something that's only a component of something that is designed to protect innocent people seems to be rather removed from reason.

    should people only be rewarded as an incentive for good behavior (by such person and others) in the future?

    alternatively, should people be rewarded for bad behavior if it will not cause future instances of bad behavior?

    You misread me. I wasn't saying that retribution has no useful purpose, or that it should be abolished. Only that it's not an end unto itself, as you seem to feel.

    Making "the goal" out to be "punishment of criminals" is missing the forest for the trees.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    mcdermott wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    EDIT: I think many are also of the "I wasn't drunk, but she was, and she said 'no' mid-coitus but I said 'fuck it'" variety...which to me is little different than the forcible variety.

    Erm. What? How? At some point in both acts the offender makes the decision that their pleasure (sexual and otherwise) is more important than the other person's wishes. They're the same damn crime.

    I did say "little" different...and actually to me there's fundamentally no difference anyway, and they should be prosecuted no differently. Unless you're talking about the instances where the rapist is drunk as well, at which point I think that impaired faculties do affect the nature of their action...less of a "decision" really. Still detestable, but marginally less so.

    I think she misread and threw in an "a" between the words "is" and "little".

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    I think she misread and threw in an "a" between the words "is" and "little".

    That's my hope as well. Carry on, gentlemen.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2007
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I think she misread and threw in an "a" between the words "is" and "little".

    That's my hope as well. Carry on, gentlemen.

    it was. curses! note to self, no reading and eating at the same time, it makes you confused.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    titmouse wrote: »
    And how is that logical? It does not help society function and it does not increase the overall happiness of society by executing a person. What is the reasoning behind wanting that?

    im not sure we are using "logic" or "reasoning" in the same way.

    just to clarify, when i give my grandma chicken soup, is it logical for me to want her to be happy?

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    What good does retribution do? What use does it have?

    So far as I can tell, the only use it has is to deter future criminals, with the exception of the context of imprisonment or capital punishment, where it's also used to remove convicted criminals from society at large.

    Making "the goal" out to be punishing criminals seems to miss the point. Punishing criminals is a component of something that's much larger. To be willing to sacrifice innocent people for something that's only a component of something that is designed to protect innocent people seems to be rather removed from reason.

    should people only be rewarded as an incentive for good behavior (by such person and others) in the future?

    alternatively, should people be rewarded for bad behavior if it will not cause future instances of bad behavior?

    You misread me. I wasn't saying that retribution has no useful purpose, or that it should be abolished. Only that it's not an end unto itself, as you seem to feel.

    Making "the goal" out to be "punishment of criminals" is missing the forest for the trees.

    and again, i simply disagree. deterrence is the result, retribution is the goal.

    also, i think you are wrong.

    when son bakes a cake for grandma, son's reasons for doing so are not in the hope other people will also bake cakes for grandma. son bakes cakes because son wants grandma to be happy. retribution is just the other side of the same coin.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    titmouse wrote: »
    or men who were guilty of various other crimes but not necessarily all of the crimes he was being prosecuted for at the time?
    Being guilty of something does not mean that you should be able to be executed for a crime you didn't commit. That goes against your belief that specific actions should have specific punishments. If he is punished for something he didn't do, he would still be getting a specific punishment for specific actions he did not commit. Whether or not he is guilty of something else does not matter in any way.

    but i did say perfectly innocent in my original post, didnt i? the point being, there are lots of unlikely scenarios, including me being executed for a crime i didnt commit. that's fine and good, but it's even less likely than my rape scenario. and yet, people continue to bring it up as if it were supposed to have persuasive force.

    the truth is, due to the way our judicial system handles the death penalty, it is extremely unlikely that a totally innocent person suffers from it. it is possible that a felon who didnt actually deserve the death penalty (just 25 to life) is killed. i consider that a sacrifice. and im not saying that speciously. i truly believe that. in my ideal world, where people get what they deserve, that man would not have been executed.

    but again, it is a sacrifice i am willing to accept in light of the goal of retribution.
    if your definition of "certain to happen" means, will and has happened, then i dont see why a revenge murder doesnt fall into the same category as "certain to happen".
    You didn't get my point, did you? I meant that what she did was just as likely to cause another revenge murder as the men raping her did. Prosecuting her for her crimes prevents a revenge murder from happening. Your hypothetical requires that nobody gave a shit about the deaths of the men nor the revenge killing. In this day and age, the media would pick it up and run with it. I wasn't disputing the fact that revenge murder happens. I was disputing the possibility of a revenge murder happening and nobody giving a shit.

    so what you are saying is that if a girl, who was gang raped later killed those people who raped her and wasnt punished for it, it would increase the rate of girls who are gang raped killing their attackers? this is the situation you are talking about? or are you talking about general deterrence, like "dude, my brother didnt get caught shoplifting so i wont get caught either"?

    because there is a very big difference. if you know anything about the concept of deterrence, you should know that existence and severity of punishment is actually one of the least influential factors. that's why the death penalty doesnt really affect deterrence either. police monitoring, clarity and education are what matters.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    If someone is going to be in prison for the rest of their natural born lives. I think putting them to sleep would be the humane option. See that? Putting them to sleep, like a poor pet cat who has FIV. It doesn't sound so mean when you use euphemisms!

    dispatch.o on
  • Options
    MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    titmouse wrote: »
    or men who were guilty of various other crimes but not necessarily all of the crimes he was being prosecuted for at the time?
    Being guilty of something does not mean that you should be able to be executed for a crime you didn't commit. That goes against your belief that specific actions should have specific punishments. If he is punished for something he didn't do, he would still be getting a specific punishment for specific actions he did not commit. Whether or not he is guilty of something else does not matter in any way.

    but i did say perfectly innocent in my original post, didnt i? the point being, there are lots of unlikely scenarios, including me being executed for a crime i didnt commit. that's fine and good, but it's even less likely than my rape scenario. and yet, people continue to bring it up as if it were supposed to have persuasive force.

    the truth is, due to the way our judicial system handles the death penalty, it is extremely unlikely that a totally innocent person suffers from it. it is possible that a felon who didnt actually deserve the death penalty (just 25 to life) is killed. i consider that a sacrifice. and im not saying that speciously. i truly believe that. in my ideal world, where people get what they deserve, that man would not have been executed.

    but again, it is a sacrifice i am willing to accept in light of the goal of retribution.
    if your definition of "certain to happen" means, will and has happened, then i dont see why a revenge murder doesnt fall into the same category as "certain to happen".
    You didn't get my point, did you? I meant that what she did was just as likely to cause another revenge murder as the men raping her did. Prosecuting her for her crimes prevents a revenge murder from happening. Your hypothetical requires that nobody gave a shit about the deaths of the men nor the revenge killing. In this day and age, the media would pick it up and run with it. I wasn't disputing the fact that revenge murder happens. I was disputing the possibility of a revenge murder happening and nobody giving a shit.

    so what you are saying is that if a girl, who was gang raped later killed those people who raped her and wasnt punished for it, it would increase the rate of girls who are gang raped killing their attackers? this is the situation you are talking about? or are you talking about general deterrence, like "dude, my brother didnt get caught shoplifting so i wont get caught either"?

    because there is a very big difference. if you know anything about the concept of deterrence, you should know that existence and severity of punishment is actually one of the least influential factors. that's why the death penalty doesnt really affect deterrence either. police monitoring, clarity and education are what matters.

    "Hey that girl killed her rapists and nothing happened! Person A did something terrible to me (rape, assault, murdered a loved one, etc), I can kill them and most likely nothing bad will happen, because I'm doing it for the purpose of retribution just like her!"

    Medopine on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Medopine wrote: »
    "Hey that girl killed her rapists and nothing happened! Person A did something terrible to me (rape, assault, murdered a loved one, etc), I can kill them and most likely nothing bad will happen, because I'm doing it for the purpose of retriubtion just like her!"

    actually, that's not how deterrence works (or doesnt work). i know intuitively, it seems like that's how it would work, but it doesnt (at least as far as my criminal law class taught me).

    people dont just decide that they can or cannot kill another person because they saw something on tv. for example, crime rates did not go up because o.j. was let off and child molestation did not go up because michael was let off.

    deterrence when it comes to the judicial system is extremely complicated. people understand that juries can go either way on things. people also understand that the police have limited resources, that prosecutors often choose not to pursue some crimes, etc., etc.

    one case where a seemingly guilty defendent goes free (even in high profile cases) does not affect crime rate at all.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    ZsetrekZsetrek Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    when son bakes a cake for grandma, son's reasons for doing so are not in the hope other people will also bake cakes for grandma. son bakes cakes because son wants grandma to be happy. retribution is just the other side of the same coin.

    The state is not a person. It does not exist to make people happy, or the reverse. The constitution provides that people be allowed to pursue happiness, not that the state will give it to them. Punishment must be justified on a social level before it becomes a social responsibility. Individual happiness (deserved or not) is not an issue of social importance. Punish someone because they are a danger to others. Punish them to make an example of them. Punish them to help them. Do not punish them because you think they need a karma readjustment.

    Also, if the son beats his grandma because he wants her to be unhappy (the reverse of baking a cake because he wants her to be happy), how is that retribution? You need to have an underlying reason. Retribution without a crime is just pointless violence.
    but again, it is a sacrifice i am willing to accept in light of the goal of retribution.

    Killing someone you don't like for nebulous personal benefit isn't a sacrifice, it's a poorly-justified murder.

    Zsetrek on
  • Options
    MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    "Hey that girl killed her rapists and nothing happened! Person A did something terrible to me (rape, assault, murdered a loved one, etc), I can kill them and most likely nothing bad will happen, because I'm doing it for the purpose of retriubtion just like her!"

    actually, that's not how deterrence works (or doesnt work). i know intuitively, it seems like that's how it would work, but it doesnt (at least as far as my criminal law class taught me).

    people dont just decide that they can or cannot kill another person because they saw something on tv. for example, crime rates did not go up because o.j. was let off and child molestation did not go up because michael was let off.

    deterrence when it comes to the judicial system is extremely complicated. people understand that juries can go either way on things. people also understand that the police have limited resources, that prosecutors often choose not to pursue some crimes, etc., etc.

    one case where a seemingly guilty defendent goes free (even in high profile cases) does not affect crime rate at all.

    Ok let's lower the scale. I DO think that if someone's brother steals something and doesn't get caught, that someone is going to be more likely to steal. I DO think that if said girl who was raped and killed her rapists was friends with a girl who was later raped, that friend would be more likely to try the same feat. (Or, if by some horrendous coincidence, said girl was raped AGAIN, she wouldn't think twice about going after her rapist.)

    The further removed you are from the actual person that "gets off," the less likely you will be to try what they tried. But that doesn't mean no one is affected by it.

    Medopine on
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    Why can't we "carbon-freeze" people instead of killing them?

    This is only a half-serious question.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2007
    because it doesn't work?

    edit: July's Scientific American has an interesting short piece on execution methods in current use. I'll have to see if I can find it online.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    because it doesn't work?

    edit: July's Scientific American has an interesting short piece on execution methods in current use. I'll have to see if I can find it online.

    My understanding was that we can currently freeze tissue, we just can't unfreeze it without killing it.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2007
    So it doesn't work...

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    So it doesn't work...

    It's only a matter of time before we figure it out fully.

    Better than, you know, permanently killing them.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    So it doesn't work...

    It's only a matter of time before we figure it out fully.

    Better than, you know, permanently killing them.

    Actually it really wouldn't be. They're in stasis. No rehab.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Zsetrek wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    when son bakes a cake for grandma, son's reasons for doing so are not in the hope other people will also bake cakes for grandma. son bakes cakes because son wants grandma to be happy. retribution is just the other side of the same coin.

    The state is not a person. It does not exist to make people happy, or the reverse. The constitution provides that people be allowed to pursue happiness, not that the state will give it to them. Punishment must be justified on a social level before it becomes a social responsibility. Individual happiness (deserved or not) is not an issue of social importance. Punish someone because they are a danger to others. Punish them to make an example of them. Punish them to help them. Do not punish them because you think they need a karma readjustment.

    although i think this is a very good point, im not actually sure how to respond to it, except to say that i think you limit what you think government's purpose is far more than i do.

    public organs provide happiness (whether it be directly through welfare programs or through the building of parks and fountains). im not sure why you say it's not the state's responsibility to ensure people receive both tangible and intangible benefits and harms, but i simply disagree.
    Also, if the son beats his grandma because he wants her to be unhappy (the reverse of baking a cake because he wants her to be happy), how is that retribution? You need to have an underlying reason. Retribution without a crime is just pointless violence.

    it's not, but im not sure why you are asking. the point was that the main reason we do things is for how they make people feel (retribution), not because we think our actions will create incentives for others (deterrence). deterrence is a side effect.
    but again, it is a sacrifice i am willing to accept in light of the goal of retribution.

    Killing someone you don't like for nebulous personal benefit isn't a sacrifice, it's a poorly-justified murder.

    actually, im not killing anyone. through a lengthy and heavily appealed process, the state is acting as the final arbitrator of justice. because nothing is perfect, sometimes that process causes deaths of people who rightly should not be sentenced to die, even under that state's own rules. they are sacrifices, just as victims of car accidents are sacrifices.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Medopine wrote: »
    Ok let's lower the scale. I DO think that if someone's brother steals something and doesn't get caught, that someone is going to be more likely to steal. I DO think that if said girl who was raped and killed her rapists was friends with a girl who was later raped, that friend would be more likely to try the same feat. (Or, if by some horrendous coincidence, said girl was raped AGAIN, she wouldn't think twice about going after her rapist.)

    The further removed you are from the actual person that "gets off," the less likely you will be to try what they tried. But that doesn't mean no one is affected by it.

    i think we're losing track of the original conversation. i stated that there is a possibility of bad acts that do not spawn further bad acts. if our penal system were only about deterrence, rehab and incarceration, then such bad acts would not have to be punished.

    for example, girl getting raped and killing rapists.

    now you can argue with me about the details of the rape and my hypothetical, but is that really the point?

    conceptually, if a "bad" act never, ever creates further "bad" acts, should that bad act be punished, yes or no? in other words, do we only really care about possible future bad acts? dont we care about the fact that this person did a "bad" act?

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    So it doesn't work...

    It's only a matter of time before we figure it out fully.

    Better than, you know, permanently killing them.

    Actually it really wouldn't be. They're in stasis. No rehab.

    Well, I proposed it with the assumption that we decided to remove them from society permanently.

    And the only reason we freeze them instead of killing them is so that if their innocence is proven later on, it's not too late.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    LindenLinden Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Well, I suppose that's one approach to the death penalty. Except that they are... rather unlikely to be filing appeals.

    Linden on
Sign In or Register to comment.