Options

Capital Punishment thread

18911131418

Posts

  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    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.
    You know in that context that's really not a bad idea.

    EDIT: It also neatly proposes a solution for dealing with sex offenders who we would otherwise sentence to X years removed from society - they still serve X years removed from society, but they're frozen until their victims are deceased of old age.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    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.

    I don't think the state should be baking cookies (as it were). I don't think it does.

    Ignoring that your analogy is a bit wobbly, if retribution is a flip of the same coin, I don't see an argument for why the state should be pursuing it, either. If it's to "make the vindictive and/or vengeful segment of the population happy", as you seem to be implying, I fail to see a compelling reason why it should be involving the state.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    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.

    I don't think the state should be baking cookies (as it were). I don't think it does.

    but the state does build parks, fountains, museums. what functional purpose do these serve, except to have humanity enjoy itself? a park is conceptually no different from a cookie. the analogy is not "wobbly" at all.
    Ignoring that your analogy is a bit wobbly, if retribution is a flip of the same coin, I don't see an argument for why the state should be pursuing it, either. If it's to "make the vindictive and/or vengeful segment of the population happy", as you seem to be implying, I fail to see a compelling reason why it should be involving the state.

    that's not what im implying. we're not trying to make the vengeful population happy, we're trying to make the bad people suffer or die.

    capital punishment has to be carried out by the state, because we accept that "personal justice" creates more problems than we are willing to accept.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Ignoring that your analogy is a bit wobbly, if retribution is a flip of the same coin, I don't see an argument for why the state should be pursuing it, either. If it's to "make the vindictive and/or vengeful segment of the population happy", as you seem to be implying, I fail to see a compelling reason why it should be involving the state.
    that's not what im implying. we're not trying to make the vengeful population happy, we're trying to make the bad people suffer or die.

    "Enjoyment" is hardly the only reason parks and the like exist, and "enjoyment" can be seen as far more than an end as well. There are a multitude of positive externalities that come out of making people happy.

    Making people suffer and die, not so much.

    Why are we trying to make the "bad people" suffer and die?

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    EDIT: It also neatly proposes a solution for dealing with sex offenders who we would otherwise sentence to X years removed from society - they still serve X years removed from society, but they're frozen until their victims are deceased of old age.

    Actually, I disagree with that one.

    Living in the future is a privilege. Technology will be more advanced, so will science and medicine. Standards of living will be higher. I don't think sex offenders deserve that awesomeness.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered 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

    i realize that i havent responded to this.

    the article you quote, which is unfortunately, quite sparse on facts, actually shows the opposite issue than what you point out. because rape and train molestation cases are so hard to prove, the law provides the victim with far more protection than our u.s. laws do. it is difficult to prove oneself innocent in a public molestation case because the law is designed to be as strict as possible in order to curb any and all possible cases of public molestation.

    that being said, i would guess (though i have no evidence obviously) that similar to "fake" rape allegations, fake public molestations cases are incredibly few and far between. the truth is, nowadays, most guys on a ridiculously crowded train try to hold both arms up in the air. this is the exact result that the law wants to accomplish.

    i bet if we look at japan's criminal white papers, public molestation has gone down in recent years specifically because effort has been exerted to eliminate the problem.

    as for supposedly "forced" confessions, quite honestly, it's not so different from what we have. cops play games in all parts of the world. and their holding times arent that different either. if you are arrested in the u.s. depending on state they can hold you for just as long, if a judge warrants that it's necessary.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Ignoring that your analogy is a bit wobbly, if retribution is a flip of the same coin, I don't see an argument for why the state should be pursuing it, either. If it's to "make the vindictive and/or vengeful segment of the population happy", as you seem to be implying, I fail to see a compelling reason why it should be involving the state.
    that's not what im implying. we're not trying to make the vengeful population happy, we're trying to make the bad people suffer or die.

    "Enjoyment" is hardly the only reason parks and the like exist, and "enjoyment" can be seen as far more than an end as well. There are a multitude of positive externalities that come out of making people happy.

    Making people suffer and die, not so much.

    Why are we trying to make the "bad people" suffer and die?

    because people should get what they deserve.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Ignoring that your analogy is a bit wobbly, if retribution is a flip of the same coin, I don't see an argument for why the state should be pursuing it, either. If it's to "make the vindictive and/or vengeful segment of the population happy", as you seem to be implying, I fail to see a compelling reason why it should be involving the state.
    that's not what im implying. we're not trying to make the vengeful population happy, we're trying to make the bad people suffer or die.

    "Enjoyment" is hardly the only reason parks and the like exist, and "enjoyment" can be seen as far more than an end as well. There are a multitude of positive externalities that come out of making people happy.

    Making people suffer and die, not so much.

    Why are we trying to make the "bad people" suffer and die?

    because people should get what they deserve.

    "What people deserve" is quite subjective. It's an opinion, not an argument.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    because people should get what they deserve.

    "What people deserve" is quite subjective. It's an opinion, not an argument.

    that's why we leave it to courts to decide if they should die or not.

    and i have no idea what you mean when you say it's an opinion not an argument.

    the concept of "people getting what they deserve" is one that many people (including myself obviously) find compelling. it's a reason for doing something just like anything else.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    LindenLinden Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    I don't think the state should be baking cookies (as it were). I don't think it does.

    but the state does build parks, fountains, museums. what functional purpose do these serve, except to have humanity enjoy itself? a park is conceptually no different from a cookie. the analogy is not "wobbly" at all.
    Enjoyment is not the sole reason for these. Parks provide a location for exercise, an opportunity to avoid concrete, and this seems to be beneficial to the state. Fountains are similar, in that they break up the monotony. Museums are cultural repositories, and enhance our ability to understand the past.

    I would argue that it is very much in the interest of the state to have a reasonably happy, engaged populace.
    Ignoring that your analogy is a bit wobbly, if retribution is a flip of the same coin, I don't see an argument for why the state should be pursuing it, either. If it's to "make the vindictive and/or vengeful segment of the population happy", as you seem to be implying, I fail to see a compelling reason why it should be involving the state.

    that's not what im implying. we're not trying to make the vengeful population happy, we're trying to make the bad people suffer or die.

    capital punishment has to be carried out by the state, because we accept that "personal justice" creates more problems than we are willing to accept.

    Why are these "bad people" deserving of losing their right to life? Their continued life poses no threat to either the state or the populace if handled correctly, and hence it is unnecessary to kill them. As such, killing them is merely an attempt at retaliation, which the state need not involve itself in. Equally, the absence of benefit means that, even if you discard any value attached to the guilty, the only outcome, namely the deaths of those who are not guilty, is negative.

    Personal justice is neither personal nor justice. The state stands to lose from an environment where death is delivered by individuals, and hence cannot permit it. By delivering death itself, the state creates an environment where the outcome of a miscarriage of justice is truly significant.


    @Ege: I would suggest that, in practice, the convicted would be poorly equipped to handle a life in "the future" should major technological advances occur during their incarceration. Indeed, the prospect of being transported to an almost completely alien environment could prove a highly effective deterrent.

    Linden on
  • Options
    LindenLinden Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    because people should get what they deserve.

    "What people deserve" is quite subjective. It's an opinion, not an argument.

    that's why we leave it to courts to decide if they should die or not.

    and i have no idea what you mean when you say it's an opinion not an argument.

    the concept of "people getting what they deserve" is one that many people (including myself obviously) find compelling. it's a reason for doing something just like anything else.

    And it is the argument of many here that this is a poor argument on which to base a justice system, for various reasons.

    As the populace, we comprise the state, which in turn defines the laws and courts. Thus, it is our views that determine the rights of the convicted. There is no benefit from killing them save making victims (or their families) happy. There is not a reasonable factor in determining justice.

    Linden on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Linden wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    I don't think the state should be baking cookies (as it were). I don't think it does.

    but the state does build parks, fountains, museums. what functional purpose do these serve, except to have humanity enjoy itself? a park is conceptually no different from a cookie. the analogy is not "wobbly" at all.
    Enjoyment is not the sole reason for these. Parks provide a location for exercise, an opportunity to avoid concrete, and this seems to be beneficial to the state. Fountains are similar, in that they break up the monotony. Museums are cultural repositories, and enhance our ability to understand the past.

    no, enjoyment is the sole reason. exercise can be done at home or in a gym. why do you want to avoid concrete or break up the monotony? a park really is no different from a cookie. cookies even have caloric value. anyway, we're getting off topic.

    the point is, the main reason why we do something for (or against) someone is not to encourage other people to act in the same way. the main reason why we do something is to make a person feel good (or bad).

    are you guys really disputing this?
    I would argue that it is very much in the interest of the state to have a reasonably happy, engaged populace.

    i agree.
    Why are these "bad people" deserving of losing their right to life? Their continued life poses no threat to either the state or the populace if handled correctly, and hence it is unnecessary to kill them. As such, killing them is merely an attempt at retaliation, which the state need not involve itself in. Equally, the absence of benefit means that, even if you discard any value attached to the guilty, the only outcome, namely the deaths of those who are not guilty, is negative.

    Personal justice is neither personal nor justice. The state stands to lose from an environment where death is delivered by individuals, and hence cannot permit it. By delivering death itself, the state creates an environment where the outcome of a miscarriage of justice is truly significant.

    people keep bringing up deterrence issues even though i have made it clear that deterrence is only one beneficial side effect.

    the reason for killing a serial murderer is because he is a horrible fucking person and he deserves it (as determined by a judge and jury). there really isnt more to it than that.

    this why, why, why questioning is pretty silly.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Linden wrote: »
    As the populace, we comprise the state, which in turn defines the laws and courts. Thus, it is our views that determine the rights of the convicted. There is no benefit from killing them save making victims (or their families) happy. There is not a reasonable factor in determining justice.

    1) i think that's a perfectly good reason for having the death penalty.

    2) even if the victims werent made happy, i would still argue for it because it helps us create a world where people have to take responsibility for their actions. this is the goal im pursuing. this is the ideal state in my mind. people who work hard and help others get rewarded. people who hurt others are punished. and the rewards and punishments should fit the actions and crimes.

    why do people have such a problem with this concept?

    i can understand a lot of the complaints against the administrative aspects of capital punishment. they are valid concerns. but there, it is just about where in the sand you draw the line as opposed to where i draw it, how much sacrifice we are willing to accept.

    i have no idea, just no understanding at all, of how one could possibly not agree to the concept of "people getting what they deserve".

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    i have no idea, just no understanding at all, of how one could possibly not agree to the concept of "people getting what they deserve".

    Because a person getting what they deserve serves no practical purpose whatsoever.

    It's basically killing someone for the sake of killing them. If we do that, how are we any different than the murderer?

    Every person on Earth has some basic, inalienable human rights. "Inalienable" means they cannot be taken away, no matter what. Nobody can -- or at least should be able to -- decide that someone doesn't "deserve" their right to live anymore and take it away from them. To do so is to succumb to barbarism.
    people keep bringing up deterrence issues even though i have made it clear that deterrence is only one beneficial side effect.

    Yes, it is a beneficial side effect... one that doesn't exist. It has been proven that the existence of a death penalty does not lead to a decrease in crime. On the contrary, it increases the intensity of the crime, because once a person figures out that their life is forfeit anyway, they'll try to make the most of it.
    the reason for killing a serial murderer is because he is a horrible fucking person and he deserves it (as determined by a judge and jury). there really isnt more to it than that.

    I'm sorry that your personal code is so shallow and one-dimensional that the only thing you consider here is whether someone deserves something or not.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Why are we trying to make the "bad people" suffer and die?

    because people should get what they deserve.

    I don't think there's anything near an effective means to reach that conclusion with our present understanding of the world. It seems to me, what someone "deserves" may simply be a happy childhood with loving parents and a chance to do it all over again. We obviously aren't able to give anyone that sort of thing, but it hardly seems like the alternative should be "suffer and die".
    Ketherial wrote: »
    no, enjoyment is the sole reason. exercise can be done at home or in a gym. why do you want to avoid concrete or break up the monotony? a park really is no different from a cookie. cookies even have caloric value. anyway, we're getting off topic.

    the point is, the main reason why we do something for (or against) someone is not to encourage other people to act in the same way. the main reason why we do something is to make a person feel good (or bad).

    are you guys really disputing this?

    Absolutely. the reasons for creating Central Park, for example, if memory serves, were rather cynical, and the arguments in favor had a similar flavor to those for eugenics.

    Your arguing against people doing things to promote the activity in others makes it appear that you are ignoring the concept of a role model, and your concept of the state as an arbiter of meting out joy or suffering is both immature and rather chilling.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Ignoring that your analogy is a bit wobbly, if retribution is a flip of the same coin, I don't see an argument for why the state should be pursuing it, either. If it's to "make the vindictive and/or vengeful segment of the population happy", as you seem to be implying, I fail to see a compelling reason why it should be involving the state.
    that's not what im implying. we're not trying to make the vengeful population happy, we're trying to make the bad people suffer or die.

    "Enjoyment" is hardly the only reason parks and the like exist, and "enjoyment" can be seen as far more than an end as well. There are a multitude of positive externalities that come out of making people happy.

    Making people suffer and die, not so much.

    Why are we trying to make the "bad people" suffer and die?

    because people should get what they deserve.

    They "deserve" a chance to make amends for their crimes and for rehabilitation.

    Can you explain why what you think they deserve is any more or less valid than what I think they deserve? I mean, with death some sadists get some short lived satisfaction of someone getting their so called "just desserts", with rehabilitation and amends we get another productive member of society as well as the victims or the victims family recieving compensation.

    And before you start spouting off about criminals getting released without being rehabilitated, that just shows how the system should be focusing on rehabilitation instead of punishment, so that people are not being released before they are ready to be productive members of society again.

    Gnome-Interruptus on
    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
  • Options
    ZsetrekZsetrek Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    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.

    Your analogy is fucked, because fountains are not a function of the state. The constitution - the organs of governance and justice - are not comparable to urban planning. The simple fact of the matter is that justice is not about making people feel good. It can have the side effect of making people feel good, but a judge is not beholden to the emotions of the public - she/he makes decisions based on facts, and tangible consequences.

    Welfare programs stop people from starving. They aren't tiki parties for the poor. They have tangible social utility.
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Zsetrek wrote: »
    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.

    See, here's where I don't get your argument. You say that "people need to get what they deserve" is the keystone of your moral system of laws. But, you're also quite prepared to say "but sometimes people get what they don't deserve, and while that's a shame, I'm prepared to live with that". You can't have it both ways! Either you want everyone to face your idea of natural justice - and that means never accepting an unjust result - or you're resigned to injustice and the inherent futility of the idea of "people need to get what they deserve."

    Also, for the record - for someone's death to be a sacrifice it (a) needs to be in the name of a cause (which inherently means it needs to be an intentional act - which accidental auto-death hardly qualifies as), and (b) needs to actually bring about a change. Killing an innocent will not bring about a change if - as you've repeatedly asserted - deterrence is a happy side-effect that only sometimes pops up. So, you can't really call killing innocent people a sacrifice in any way. It's either an accident, or murder - and because you acknowledge the fact that under your system innocents will die, and you've averted to that fact, I'd argue that you're endorsing state-sponsored murder. Which would make you a dick - if I actually thought that you'd logically thought your position through.

    Zsetrek on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    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.

    If there is one thing criminal psychology has taught us, it is that the more crimes a person commits, the easier and thus more likely it becomes for them to commit further crimes.

    broken windows olol

    Seriously, I still think that allowing the death penalty AT ALL makes it easier for individuals to murder, because it reduces the "sanctity" or life if it is suddenly something that can legally be taken away.

    Evander on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father 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.

    The happiness or suffering of the person, though, has no real logical basis. It doesn't serve ANY purpose at all; you just keep saying that they "deserve" it.



    I mean, could you possibly be appealing MORE to emotion?

    Evander on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    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.

    So, while we're discussing all of these sacrifices to this dark lord of yours, you still haven't answered what I've asked you before.

    Would YOU be willing to be one of these sacrifices? If you were wrongfully convicted and sentanced to death, your appeals were in vain, and the day finally came, would you be walking that long mile, saying to yourself "well, at least I'm dying for something I believe in."?

    Evander on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    dont we care about the fact that this person did a "bad" act?

    you're missinga KEY thing here:

    WHY do we care?

    That is to say, there needs to be a reason for our actions; we can't just rationalize them with some sense of "justice" or "ballance" when there is no true basis behind them.



    "Karma" should not be the basis of our legal system.

    Evander on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    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.

    I don't think the state should be baking cookies (as it were). I don't think it does.

    but the state does build parks, fountains, museums. what functional purpose do these serve, except to have humanity enjoy itself?

    But these parks do not KILL people.

    Evander on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    because people should get what they deserve.

    "What people deserve" is quite subjective. It's an opinion, not an argument.

    that's why we leave it to courts to decide if they should die or not.

    and i have no idea what you mean when you say it's an opinion not an argument.

    the concept of "people getting what they deserve" is one that many people (including myself obviously) find compelling. it's a reason for doing something just like anything else.

    Again, you "find it compelling."

    Where is this NOT an argument about your emotions?

    Evander on
  • Options
    Vrtra TheoryVrtra Theory Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial, no offense man, but you scare me.

    Capital punishment isn't justice at all. It's just revenge. The fact that it makes some people feel better to see a criminal executed does not mean justice was done - it only means those people have the morality of a child. I'm probably going way further than some people in this thread, because not only do I reject capital punishment, I reject any form of retributive justice - the idea of "giving someone what they deserve" is completely and utterly false. To stress that: the state (and all morally reasoning people) do not have the right to do anything to someone because it's what they deserve.

    When we give a speeder a speeding ticket, we should do it because that will deter a reasonable person from speeding. We should not do it to "punish" the speeder. When we lock up a murderer, we should do it because that individual poses a threat to society. Not to "punish" the murderer. The very idea of "punishment" relies on the moral system of an 8-year-old, where doing "bad" things gets you a spanking and doing "good" things gets you a cookie.

    Believe me, I understand the animal instinct, the sense of righteous justice, that sense of karma that comes from seeing a serial rapist get what you consider his just deserts. The fact that it makes you feel good, however, doesn't mean it is right.

    Vrtra Theory on
    Are you a Software Engineer living in Seattle? HBO is hiring, message me.
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    You know, I am a law-abiding, tax-paying, society-contributing citizen. I think I do pretty much what I can to contribute to society, and so I should get what I deserve.

    Where is my state-sanctioned blowjob?

    Evander on
  • Options
    Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Indeed Keth, if all people should get what they deserve, please make with the head!

    Gnome-Interruptus on
    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    When we give a speeder a speeding ticket, we should do it because that will deter a reasonable person from speeding. We should not do it to "punish" the speeder. When we lock up a murderer, we should do it because that individual poses a threat to society.

    I have to say, I think I'm pretty much in agreement with you. "Retribution" or doing something to criminals that "they deserve" are only really reasonable as being "deserved" because that is what the law says, and only should be in the law because they act as a deterrent.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    Pants ManPants Man Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    When we give a speeder a speeding ticket, we should do it because that will deter a reasonable person from speeding. We should not do it to "punish" the speeder. When we lock up a murderer, we should do it because that individual poses a threat to society.

    I have to say, I think I'm pretty much in agreement with you. "Retribution" or doing something to criminals that "they deserve" are only really reasonable as being "deserved" because that is what the law says, and only should be in the law because they act as a deterrent.

    a speeding ticket is a deterrent because people speed all the time and it's an appropriate response to what the person did, as decided by society.

    the death penalty is a punishment used in some cases because that's an appropriate response to what the person did, as decided by society.

    you guys are comparing apples to oranges

    Pants Man on
    "okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Pants Man wrote: »
    a speeding ticket is a deterrent because people speed all the time and it's an appropriate response to what the person did, as decided by society.

    the death penalty is a punishment used in some cases because that's an appropriate response to what the person did, as decided by society.

    you guys are comparing apples to oranges

    There's a context here that you are forgetting, and that is Keth's argument about people getting their just desserts.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    Pants ManPants Man Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Pants Man wrote: »
    a speeding ticket is a deterrent because people speed all the time and it's an appropriate response to what the person did, as decided by society.

    the death penalty is a punishment used in some cases because that's an appropriate response to what the person did, as decided by society.

    you guys are comparing apples to oranges

    There's a context here that you are forgetting, and that is Keth's argument about people getting their just desserts.

    i know, but he's wrong. to some people that's the appeal of the death penalty, but if "just desserts" was the real motivation behind it, we'd apply it to all murder cases and be done with it. we don't.

    it's a punishment because of the nature of the crime.

    Pants Man on
    "okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Pants Man wrote: »
    i know, but he's wrong.

    I know that too. It's only apples to oranges if you take out the context of his infantile position.

    There are many arguments to bring to bear outside that context.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    apples and oranges are both fruit.

    we are looking at the parts of things whee they ARE similar, not the ones where they are not.

    No two things are every EXACTLY the same, otherwise they would just bethe same thing.

    Evander on
  • Options
    Vrtra TheoryVrtra Theory Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Pants Man wrote: »
    to some people that's the appeal of the death penalty, but if "just desserts" was the real motivation behind it, we'd apply it to all murder cases and be done with it. we don't.

    it's a punishment because of the nature of the crime.

    I guess what I'm arguing (and what you would probably reject) is that the very concept of punishment can only be justified in an immature moral framework. I'm arguing that all punishment is immoral, no matter the crime.

    I don't want to stray too far into idealism, but if all humans were morally and logically sound, there would be virtually zero crime. There would certainly be no murder or rape. Now, that's obviously not the case: some people do commit the crimes of murder and rape. However, it makes no sense to call such a person "bad": there's no such as thing as "bad", and there's certainly no such thing as "good" or "evil". There are actions which are morally right, and actions which are morally wrong. A murderer is not bad, they are morally unsound: perhaps chemical imbalances prevent them understanding morality correctly, perhaps poor parenting stunted their mental and ethical development, perhaps their culture presented an incorrect picture of how things should work. Regardless, a murderer isn't a bad person that should be punished; a murderer is a broken human that needs to be fixed.

    Today, we have no reliable means of pinpointing exactly what flaws cause a person to behave in morally wrong ways. That might be because we haven't evolved far enough scientifically, or it could simply be impossible. Either way, in the meantime, we have the responsibility to protect the rest of society, so we keep broken humans away from society at large.

    Personally, I have no issues with putting a murderer in "deep freeze": if proven innocent, they are free to join society (because they were never dangerous to begin with). If at some point our rehabilitation techniques improve, we can unfreeze them and start that process, fixing them and allowing them to rejoin society. Note that the concept of punishment is completely lacking in this solution: the murderer may not like the idea of being frozen, but we aren't doing it to make him suffer, we're doing it to protect society.

    Vrtra Theory on
    Are you a Software Engineer living in Seattle? HBO is hiring, message me.
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    I started to say I was morally opposed to accidentally freezing an innocent.

    Then I realized I was only as opposed as I was to locking away an innocent for life.

    which is to say, LESS than I am to killing an innocent.

    Evander on
  • Options
    brandotheninjamasterbrandotheninjamaster Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Evander I don't think you made enough posts on this thread make some more.

    brandotheninjamaster on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Guys, what I'm saying is that I don't like it when people die.



    And I think that is probably the type of thing that should be one of the key goals of our society; the avoidance of people dying.



    So, anything that causes people to die needs to have a damn good reason behind it, not just "dude in a robe and tweleve dudes kinda like him said they thought it would be okayif we killed him."



    Like, self-preservation, that one I can understand. But unless a guy is a notorious killer of any dudes who wear robes, I don't see capital punishment as being justifiable in that sense.

    Evander on
  • Options
    BigJoeMBigJoeM Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    I can understand that sentiment.

    Its not that shocking or upsetting to me when juries sentence people like Aileen Wuornos and Dexter Johnson to death.

    I have problems with the way it is administered in this country (and Texas in particular) but i look at cases like those and i can understand why we have it.

    BigJoeM on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    BigJoeM wrote: »
    I can understand that sentiment.

    Its not that shocking or upsetting to me when juries sentence people like Aileen Wuornos and Dexter Johnson to death.

    I have problems with the way it is administered in this country (and Texas in particular) but i look at cases like those and i can understand why we have it.

    right, but ontop of my moralistic/idealistic feelings, I ALSO opposed the death penalty because I beclieve tha A) it cheapens the value of life but removing it from the catagory of inalienable rights, and B) itkills innocent people without necessity.

    The latter I posted up a faux-proof for earlier in the thread. (I call it a faux-proof because i used the word "ergo")

    Evander on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Evander wrote: »
    1)Absolute truth is unknowable

    2)Humans are not infallible in their judgements or in their observations

    3)Improbable circumstances can occur, either by accident or by design

    Ergo, regardless of the cut-off lines you make for proof and relative certainty, there will always be room for something to be overlooked (1) and because of this, and the fact that the statements and evidence you have may turn out not to be entirely accurate (2), it is possible for an innocent man to be killed simply because his circumstances made him look guilty enough to slip through the cracks (3).



    Unless you are okay with the fact that some amount of innocent people will be killed, there really is no way to realistically support the death penalty.

    Evander on
  • Options
    BigJoeMBigJoeM Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    And i pointed out how all of those "unalienable" rights can be taken from you by due process of law.

    I have problems with how its done but my solution is to try to fix it rather than throwing it away.

    Honestly if we got rid of capital punishment i wouldn't be lobbying to bring it back and i would definitely be in favor of a hiatus to try to fix some of its problems.

    I just think removing it is not really a tenable position there haven't been that many good legal challenges (especially now with an even more conservative supreme court) and the political will isn't there.

    Yes i saw the post and i am comfortable with the fact that some innocents will be wrongfully executed what i am not comfortable with are the numbers.

    BigJoeM on
Sign In or Register to comment.