Options

Capital Punishment thread

1101113151618

Posts

  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Dyscord wrote: »
    The problem is this, Keth. You're trying to substitute your judgment of people for what society should do in redress of crimes, and fine: no one can really tell you not to do that.

    But you can't turn around and say that your view is actually supported by the justice system, or even really that it should be.

    no, ive repeatedly stated that my view is not more valid than anyone elses. what matters is the view of the state legislature, the judge and the jury.

    the current state allows capital punishment. i agree with that decision. in the event capital punishment is outlawed, i will disagree with that decision but accept that majority rules.

    conceptually, i will also accept that most people simply think that no one deserves death for any action they commit. i will still disagree with that sentiment - there are certainly horrible things that people can do that i personally think deserve death. however, that being said, if society feels that a serial rapist murderer only deserves lwop, then so be it. they are "getting what they deserve", as the majority has decided and i bow down to the majority's rule.

    i'd still disagree with the decision though.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Oh, no you don't. Here's what you said upthread:
    the problem being, truly innocent people are almost never sacrificed. it's like this dark secret that no one wants to mention: the people who get on death row are there for a reason. even if they are "innocent" of some specific crime or even if they could have gotten off on a technicality, these arent "good" people in the traditional sense. not most of them, anyway.

    Now. If society sets up a system that determines when someone will be executed, you have to follow the system through to it's conclusion, not say that as soon as someone hits death row their "innocence of a specific crime" or the "technicality" that they could've gotten off on doesn't matter. Because the specific crimes and technicalities are part of the system that's been set up too, and if they get off for those reasons, it means that society doesn't say that it's okay to execute them.

    You're saying that you really don't care, since they weren't "truly innocent" anyway.

    The biggest goddamn problem with the death penalty is that we fail so hard at considering all the evidence before someone is executed, particularly if that person is poor and is assigned a public defender. If you bother to follow this issue, it's hard to go six months without reading about someone who probably could or should have been exonerated from a capital crime by some simple thing like a DNA test, but couldn't get it, either because they took a plea somewhere or their counsel was incompetent or they got railroaded in some other way.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    Your thinking is flawed, because in the hypothetical scenarios you suggested, I would act on impulse, which would be based on my emotions, not my logic. My decision to save my family from harm, and my decision in self-preservation, are all decisions made on emotion.

    And that is the entire point behind our justice system: it is not built on emotion. It is not affected by emotion. It is neutral, and it uses cold logic. When you say something like "I support capital punishment because I believe in people getting what they deserve", you're arguing on the basis of your emotions, not your logic.

    please disregard the scenarios.

    conceptually, you are saying that one person's life is worth amputating both arms of every human being on the planet. this is what you are saying?

    conceptually speaking now. no need to say, that would never happen or whatever. im just trying to understand the concept behind your morality.

    cause, i think that's a pretty extreme stance to take and i highly doubt most people would agree with you.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Dyscord wrote: »
    \
    Now. If society sets up a system that determines when someone will be executed, you have to follow the system through to it's conclusion, not say that as soon as someone hits death row their "innocence of a specific crime" or the "technicality" that they could've gotten off on doesn't matter. Because the specific crimes and technicalities are part of the system that's been set up too, and if they get off for those reasons, it means that society doesn't say that it's okay to execute them.

    You're saying that you really don't care, since they weren't "truly innocent" anyway.

    The biggest goddamn problem with the death penalty is that we fail so hard at considering all the evidence before someone is executed, particularly if that person is poor and is assigned a public defender. If you bother to follow this issue, it's hard to go six months without reading about someone who probably could or should have been exonerated from a capital crime by some simple thing like a DNA test, but couldn't get it, either because they took a plea somewhere or their counsel was incompetent or they got railroaded in some other way.

    In a related vein, when you say someone shouldn't have gotten off on a technicality, what you're saying is that you think that, for example, the police should be allowed to enter your house without your permission or a warrant to look for evidence— as long as you're guilty.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    from page 10:
    keth wrote:
    edit: also as ive stated before, i think state sponsored retribution is a perfectly good reason for killing people because horrible people should get what they deserve (as determined by a judge and jury).
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Oh, no you don't. Here's what you said upthread:
    the problem being, truly innocent people are almost never sacrificed. it's like this dark secret that no one wants to mention: the people who get on death row are there for a reason. even if they are "innocent" of some specific crime or even if they could have gotten off on a technicality, these arent "good" people in the traditional sense. not most of them, anyway.

    Now. If society sets up a system that determines when someone will be executed, you have to follow the system through to it's conclusion, not say that as soon as someone hits death row their "innocence of a specific crime" or the "technicality" that they could've gotten off on doesn't matter. Because the specific crimes and technicalities are part of the system that's been set up too, and if they get off for those reasons, it means that society doesn't say that it's okay to execute them.

    You're saying that you really don't care, since they weren't "truly innocent" anyway.

    i've also addressed this already. people who didnt deserve to die (being innocent of the accused crime, although not necessarily perfectly innocent) are sacrifices. they are like the innocent civilians that die from car accidents. we dont want them to die, but we accept that there are losses that are taken when pursuing certain goals.
    The biggest goddamn problem with the death penalty is that we fail so hard at considering all the evidence before someone is executed, particularly if that person is poor and is assigned a public defender. If you bother to follow this issue, it's hard to go six months without reading about someone who probably could or should have been exonerated from a capital crime by some simple thing like a DNA test, but couldn't get it, either because they took a plea somewhere or their counsel was incompetent or they got railroaded in some other way.

    i agree that this is the biggest problem with the death penalty.

    does this mean also that you agree that the desire for retribution is not the biggest problem with the death penalty? in other words, are you fine with the concept of capital punishment if we could ensure guilt?

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Adrien wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    \
    Now. If society sets up a system that determines when someone will be executed, you have to follow the system through to it's conclusion, not say that as soon as someone hits death row their "innocence of a specific crime" or the "technicality" that they could've gotten off on doesn't matter. Because the specific crimes and technicalities are part of the system that's been set up too, and if they get off for those reasons, it means that society doesn't say that it's okay to execute them.

    You're saying that you really don't care, since they weren't "truly innocent" anyway.

    The biggest goddamn problem with the death penalty is that we fail so hard at considering all the evidence before someone is executed, particularly if that person is poor and is assigned a public defender. If you bother to follow this issue, it's hard to go six months without reading about someone who probably could or should have been exonerated from a capital crime by some simple thing like a DNA test, but couldn't get it, either because they took a plea somewhere or their counsel was incompetent or they got railroaded in some other way.

    In a related vein, when you say someone shouldn't have gotten off on a technicality, what you're saying is that you think that, for example, the police should be allowed to enter your house without your permission or a warrant to look for evidence— as long as you're guilty.

    i dont think that's what anyone is saying.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    conceptually, you are saying that one person's life is worth amputating both arms of every human being on the planet. this is what you are saying?

    . . .

    What I mean by "infinite value" is that you cannot measure its worth. You cannot say "is one life worth X". Because asking such a question misses the whole point.

    Regarding my personal morality, it has nothing to do with what I am advocating/arguing against here. Because I'm not so self-centered as to believe that the entire justice system should be based on what I believe to be moral and immoral.

    When it comes to personal decisions, I'm a consequentialist, to a great extent. So I wouldn't cut off every single person's arms on the planet to save one person's life.

    But again, this misses the point in the context of capital punishment. You aren't killing the murderer to save other people's lives, because locking him away would also serve that purpose of public safety. You are killing the murderer because you believe that he deserves it; that the moral basis of his actions should determine the moral basis of ours, the punishers. Therefore, the lack of respect for human life of that murderer, a deranged individual, is essentially reflected on the justice system.

    This should not happen.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    i've also addressed this already. people who didnt deserve to die (being innocent of the accused crime, although not necessarily perfectly innocent) are sacrifices. they are like the innocent civilians that die from car accidents. we dont want them to die, but we accept that there are losses that are taken when pursuing certain goals.

    No. Wrong. Society hasn't made some decision that a certain number of car related fatalities per year are okay, and if we could just get down to that number we could stop worrying about the ones that do happen. Car safety standards are updated all the time, with the ultimate goal of no automobile related fatalities.

    Society has not, that I am ever aware of, collectively expressed the idea that some innocent deaths are justified if necessary to maintain the death penalty. In fact, most officials, when directly confronted with innocents who've been executed, have suspended the death penalty or commuted death sentences in their jurisdiction completely (see various U.S. governors in the last five years or so.)
    does this mean also that you agree that the desire for retribution is not the biggest problem with the death penalty? in other words, are you fine with the concept of capital punishment if we could ensure guilt?

    The biggest problem with any law is that it is being applied unevenly, but that's not my only problem with the death penalty. I think that in the majority of death penalty cases, the state shouldn't have abandoned the rehabilitative function of the justice system. There are probably a few cases where the possibility of rehabilitation is so remote that the death penalty can be justified, but I would be just as happy imprisoning those people for life without the possibility of parole.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    conceptually, you are saying that one person's life is worth amputating both arms of every human being on the planet. this is what you are saying?

    . . .

    What I mean by "infinite value" is that you cannot measure its worth. You cannot say "is one life worth X". Because asking such a question misses the whole point.

    Regarding my personal morality, it has nothing to do with what I am advocating/arguing against here. Because I'm not so self-centered as to believe that the entire justice system should be based on what I believe to be moral and immoral.

    When it comes to personal decisions, I'm a consequentialist, to a great extent. So I wouldn't cut off every single person's arms on the planet to save one person's life.

    i see. when you make statements like "life has infinite value" then try to use that as reasoning for your conclusions, it makes me skeptical, that's all.
    But again, this misses the point in the context of capital punishment. You aren't killing the murderer to save other people's lives, because locking him away would also serve that purpose of public safety. You are killing the murderer because you believe that he deserves it; that the moral basis of his actions should determine the moral basis of ours, the punishers. Therefore, the lack of respect for human life of that murderer, a deranged individual, is essentially reflected on the justice system.

    This should not happen.

    lots of anti capital punishment people do it, but personally i think it's silly to try and argue that capital punishment is the equivalent of murder by the state.

    there are huge distinctions, the easiest of which are:

    1) prior process: capital punishment ("cp") can only occur after due process

    is arresting you the equivalent of kidnapping?
    is putting you in handcuffs assault and battery?
    is a warranted search of your home trespass?

    2) method: cp is done as humanely as possible

    is pulling the plug on a vegetable equivalent to flaying a person to death?

    3) reasoning: cp is done only if youve been convicted of a heinous crime

    are guilty people of identical status to innocent people?

    anyway, the argument that cp = murder by the state is just dumb.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    LindenLinden Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    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.

    As you have agreed, a reasonably happy, engaged populace is in the interest of the state. Providing quality of life, which these things are, is, therefore, a valid purpose of the state. Enjoyment is a means to an end, not an end in itself.
    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 am, yes. There are several reasons for aiding someone:
    • They benefit. This is the sole reason you seem to be accepting as a motive.
    • I benefit from doing it. This is not uncommon – in humans, it's occasionally called "empathy".
    From the perspective of the state, it is this second aspect that is important. If providing quality of life aids in stability, then the state can benefit from doing so.

    However, if the state can induce others to act for it (see "charity"), then it reduces the burden on its resources. As such, encouraging positive acts is beneficial to the state. Encouraging negative acts is clearly counterproductive.
    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.

    You have made clear that your view on the purpose of justice is at odds with that of the majority, yes. To prevent crime should be a goal of any legal system, secondary only to maintaining human rights. With appropriate selection of laws (and let me note that I would consider these the only valid laws), these two goals are not in opposition.

    Your commentary on Japan would indicate the view that deterrence is an aim.

    Arguing that our aim is to deliver what someone "deserves" is to step outside the role of the state utterly. Even in Leviathan, it is commented that
    And because the end of this institution is the peace and defence of them all, and whosoever has right to the end has right to the means, it belonged of right to whatsoever man or assembly that hath the sovereignty to be judge both of the means of peace and defence, and also of the hindrances and disturbances of the same; and to do whatsoever he shall think necessary to be done, both beforehand, for the preserving of peace and security, by prevention of discord at home, and hostility from abroad; and when peace and security are lost, for the recovery of the same

    Peace. Security. The goals of the state in 1651. The only goals. I would argue that the guarantee of human rights are the third, and, perhaps, the most important, function of the state.

    Linden on
  • Options
    LindenLinden Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    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.

    1: Perhaps. Perhaps not. This is very much a personal matter, and I do not accept that any right to happiness overrides the right to life of a member of the populace. The only right which may do so is the right to control of the self, and even this may be abrogated in the interests of the state – imprisonment overrides the right to travel, so as to protect the state.

    2: The goal of responsibility is achieved perfectly well by imprisonment. Making punishment fit the crime is a foolhardy goal. I will not condone the rape of a rapist. I will not condone the murder of a murderer. I will accept fining a thief, for such action is of an appropriate magnitude given the crime.
    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".

    I object to the concept for the simple reason that I do not believe it to be an appropriate basis for a legal system. I find it to have no moral value whatsoever, and can view it only as a complete disregard for human life and liberty. The least infringement possible – this is what we should aim for.

    Linden on
  • Options
    LindenLinden Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    Because a person getting what they deserve serves no practical purpose whatsoever.

    what do you mean when you say practical? when a state builds a public sculpture, is any practical purpose being served?
    Yes. Again, a reasonably happy population is in the interest of the state. It is beneficial to peace and stability.
    Ketherial wrote: »
    It's basically killing someone for the sake of killing them. If we do that, how are we any different than the murderer?

    due process.
    Immaterial. The state defines due process as it wishes. If you choose to declare due process as inherently valuable, then perhaps you would care to inform me how you resolve this with your view on human rights.

    We may define due process as simply "was he accused in a court of law by a sanctioned entity? –> guilty". This does not mean it is beneficial.
    Ketherial wrote: »
    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.

    i dont believe in "inalienable" human rights. i dont even know what that means in light of the fact that i can violate every one of them.

    To do so is a complete violation of the social contract. I think that's a fairly simple way of understanding it.

    Ketherial wrote: »
    im not ignoring it. i clearly said that being a role model is not the main reason for our doing anything. we do things for their direct effects. side effects are just that: side effects. happiness and suffering are the main effects. incentive and deterrence are the side effects.

    it's really not that hard.

    The state, as a rational actor, may freely work beyond the immediate. And this statement:
    Ketherial wrote: »
    side effects are just that: side effects

    Is stupid. I may decide that, from my perspective, the main goal of my introducing myxomatosis to a region* is to demonstrate the process by which resistance is developed. This is a valid main goal. That rabbits die is a side effect.

    My argument here is that deterrence should be the main goal of the legal system.

    * I did not do this. Promise.
    Ketherial wrote: »
    what i think a serial murderer deserves has no validity at all. what a state legislature, a judge and 12 jurors think a serial murderer deserves is the only thing that matters. and what the collective state thinks a serial murderer deserves is far more valid than what you think.

    Sadly, this is true. Amazingly, and I know that this may be a little difficult for you, the situation that we discuss here is one where we state what we believe should be done.

    This argument is on par with "it should be illegal because it is illegal". Valueless.

    Linden on
  • Options
    Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    keth wrote:
    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.

    what i think a serial murderer deserves has no validity at all. what a state legislature, a judge and 12 jurors think a serial murderer deserves is the only thing that matters. and what the collective state thinks a serial murderer deserves is far more valid than what you think.

    What a state legislature, a judge and 12 jurors think a serial murderer "deserves" also is not the be all end all. Especially when most of the civilized world is opposed to capital punishment, including a large percentage of the US of A.

    Also your "scenarios" are fucktarded. The options are not allow rape of female relatives or kill rapist, there is another option: Detain, prosecute, and incarcerate.

    Gnome-Interruptus on
    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    i've also addressed this already. people who didnt deserve to die (being innocent of the accused crime, although not necessarily perfectly innocent) are sacrifices. they are like the innocent civilians that die from car accidents. we dont want them to die, but we accept that there are losses that are taken when pursuing certain goals.

    No. Wrong. Society hasn't made some decision that a certain number of car related fatalities per year are okay, and if we could just get down to that number we could stop worrying about the ones that do happen. Car safety standards are updated all the time, with the ultimate goal of no automobile related fatalities.

    Society has not, that I am ever aware of, collectively expressed the idea that some innocent deaths are justified if necessary to maintain the death penalty. In fact, most officials, when directly confronted with innocents who've been executed, have suspended the death penalty or commuted death sentences in their jurisdiction completely (see various U.S. governors in the last five years or so.)

    im guessing youve never studied product liability. please feel free to look up justice hand's (one of the most well respect judges in u.s. history) famous equation regarding torts. society has certainly made a decision regarding car and other accident fatalities. it has also done the same for the death penalty or the death penalty would simply be outlawed.
    does this mean also that you agree that the desire for retribution is not the biggest problem with the death penalty? in other words, are you fine with the concept of capital punishment if we could ensure guilt?

    The biggest problem with any law is that it is being applied unevenly, but that's not my only problem with the death penalty. I think that in the majority of death penalty cases, the state shouldn't have abandoned the rehabilitative function of the justice system. There are probably a few cases where the possibility of rehabilitation is so remote that the death penalty can be justified, but I would be just as happy imprisoning those people for life without the possibility of parole.

    have you read the entire thread? have you seen the article i linked about the aryan brotherhood?

    not a single person in this thread has ever attempted to respond directly to the issue. please feel free to try.

    anyway, i agree that rehabilitation is a great goal. but as you recognize, not all people can be rehabed and for those that cant and continue to be threats (even after being slapped with multiple lwop sentences and being put in supermax prisons), i dont see why they shouldnt just be killed.

    i think there are others who are deserving of death for sure, but even if we cant agree on retribution, i think we can at least agree (for deterrence's sake) that those aryan brotherhood guys in those supermax prisons have to be killed.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    LindenLinden Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Dyscord wrote: »
    The biggest problem with any law is that it is being applied unevenly, but that's not my only problem with the death penalty. I think that in the majority of death penalty cases, the state shouldn't have abandoned the rehabilitative function of the justice system. There are probably a few cases where the possibility of rehabilitation is so remote that the death penalty can be justified, but I would be just as happy imprisoning those people for life without the possibility of parole.

    I'd like to mention that this would seem to be the situation where life imprisonment is a better option, due to both the cost, and the ability to respond if the conviction is overturned.

    Otherwise, yes. Abandoning attempts at rehabilitation is bad.

    Linden on
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    besides, it's not possible for the state to always give everyone what they deserve. it's just the goal that we seek, not the reality of the situation.

    Sounds like communism.

    actually i love communism in theory. i acknowledge that it would be difficult in reality.

    The goal of the state being the provider and to always give everyone what they "deserve" is unfeasible. It's not even a goal that we should seek, as that's essentially what went wrong with almost every socialist state that was ruled by a communist party during the 20th century.

    So, you're basing your ideal government on a horribly flawed system, and you're basing your notion of "justice" on some five-year-old's fantasy of everyone getting what they deserve.

    Grow the fuck up.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    LindenLinden Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    does this mean also that you agree that the desire for retribution is not the biggest problem with the death penalty? in other words, are you fine with the concept of capital punishment if we could ensure guilt?

    The biggest problem with any law is that it is being applied unevenly, but that's not my only problem with the death penalty. I think that in the majority of death penalty cases, the state shouldn't have abandoned the rehabilitative function of the justice system. There are probably a few cases where the possibility of rehabilitation is so remote that the death penalty can be justified, but I would be just as happy imprisoning those people for life without the possibility of parole.

    have you read the entire thread? have you seen the article i linked about the aryan brotherhood?

    not a single person in this thread has ever attempted to respond directly to the issue. please feel free to try.

    anyway, i agree that rehabilitation is a great goal. but as you recognize, not all people can be rehabed and for those that cant and continue to be threats (even after being slapped with multiple lwop sentences and being put in supermax prisons), i dont see why they shouldnt just be killed.

    i think there are others who are deserving of death for sure, but even if we cant agree on retribution, i think we can at least agree (for deterrence's sake) that those aryan brotherhood guys in those supermax prisons have to be killed.

    To utterly isolate those who pose a threat within prisons is still superior to death. Not all murderers cannot be rehabilitated.

    Linden on
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    besides, it's not possible for the state to always give everyone what they deserve. it's just the goal that we seek, not the reality of the situation.

    Sounds like communism.

    actually i love communism in theory. i acknowledge that it would be difficult in reality.

    The goal of the state being the provider and to always give everyone what they "deserve" is unfeasible. It's not even a goal that we should seek, as that's essentially what went wrong with almost every socialist state that was ruled by a communist party during the 20th century.

    So, you're basing your ideal government on a horribly flawed system, and you're basing your notion of "justice" on some five-year-old's fantasy of everyone getting what they deserve.

    Grow the fuck up.
    The whole notion of "deserving" (in the this act has this much positive/negative value way) anything should be outside the law's scope anyway. Speaking of, where is Kakos, anyways?

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    The article on the Aryan Brotherhood was discussed in the last Death Penalty thread. The problem is not that they cannot kill these "ring leaders", but that the people put in charge of incarcerating them are corruptable and are being payed off, then later when things are not going their way they complain to the state that these guys are out of control.

    Also, them saying that they "have tried everything but the death penalty" is blatantly false.

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

    As you have agreed, a reasonably happy, engaged populace is in the interest of the state. Providing quality of life, which these things are, is, therefore, a valid purpose of the state. Enjoyment is a means to an end, not an end in itself.
    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 am, yes. There are several reasons for aiding someone:
    • They benefit. This is the sole reason you seem to be accepting as a motive.
    • I benefit from doing it. This is not uncommon – in humans, it's occasionally called "empathy".
    From the perspective of the state, it is this second aspect that is important. If providing quality of life aids in stability, then the state can benefit from doing so.

    However, if the state can induce others to act for it (see "charity"), then it reduces the burden on its resources. As such, encouraging positive acts is beneficial to the state. Encouraging negative acts is clearly counterproductive.

    no, i stated very clearly that direct benefit is the main goal, incentives are secondary. please re-read the thread if necessary.
    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.

    You have made clear that your view on the purpose of justice is at odds with that of the majority, yes. To prevent crime should be a goal of any legal system, secondary only to maintaining human rights. With appropriate selection of laws (and let me note that I would consider these the only valid laws), these two goals are not in opposition.

    Your commentary on Japan would indicate the view that deterrence is an aim.

    ive stated again and again that there are 4 goals. people place different amounts of importance on each. retribution being one of the goals, is important to me. it is not a non-existent goal and it is not at odds with that of the majority (see legislature - see laws - see death penalty).
    Arguing that our aim is to deliver what someone "deserves" is to step outside the role of the state utterly. Even in Leviathan, it is commented that
    And because the end of this institution is the peace and defence of them all, and whosoever has right to the end has right to the means, it belonged of right to whatsoever man or assembly that hath the sovereignty to be judge both of the means of peace and defence, and also of the hindrances and disturbances of the same; and to do whatsoever he shall think necessary to be done, both beforehand, for the preserving of peace and security, by prevention of discord at home, and hostility from abroad; and when peace and security are lost, for the recovery of the same

    Peace. Security. The goals of the state in 1651. The only goals. I would argue that the guarantee of human rights are the third, and, perhaps, the most important, function of the state.

    you agree with hobbes? interesting and awesome but rare.

    btw, i disagree, which again, ive stated repeatedly. i think the gov't's role is more expansive than what you limit it to be (see public statutes, morality laws (prostitution, drug use, etc.), health care, pensions, etc.) there are lots of things that the gov't does that do not contribute to peace and security (unless you think the elderly are going to revolt). i like govt having more expansive functions. i like the fact that we can band together to try and give people what they specifically need (and not just peace and security).

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    As I said, I'm a consequentialist. In this context, for all intents and purposes, capital punishment is state-sanctioned murder.

    This is not to say that I'm against state-sanctioned murder, or state-sanctioned kidnapping, or state-sanctioned assault and battery. Given good enough reasons, reasons which -- by my moral code -- involve superior consequences, I may be convinced that they are in fact acceptable routes to take. For instance, arresting a criminal is a necessary process of temporarily removing him from society while his actions are evaluated by authorities. However, same could not be said of capital punishment; it is not necessary. There are many alternatives that serve the same purpose, if we are concerned with public safety.

    The only reason for which you seem to be supporting CP is that, in your opinion, the person deserves to die. It is a very poor argument that doesn't have much substance to it.
    cp is done as humanely as possible

    Right, but isn't locking them away infinitely more humane than killing them? It seems very hypocritical to be concerned with humaneness when the action itself is inherently barbaric and inhumane.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Linden wrote: »
    2: The goal of responsibility is achieved perfectly well by imprisonment. Making punishment fit the crime is a foolhardy goal. I will not condone the rape of a rapist. I will not condone the murder of a murderer. I will accept fining a thief, for such action is of an appropriate magnitude given the crime.

    why is stealing from a thief (and imprisonment) appropriate and death not appropriate? the majority of the u.s. seems to think it's appropriate to kill a serial murderer.
    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".

    I object to the concept for the simple reason that I do not believe it to be an appropriate basis for a legal system. I find it to have no moral value whatsoever, and can view it only as a complete disregard for human life and liberty. The least infringement possible – this is what we should aim for.

    that's a good reason.

    girl killing her rapists, one year after the rape. punish her or let her go?

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    girl killing her rapists, one year after the rape. punish her or let her go?

    You mean kill her or let her go? Because there are options in between those two extremities.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    I understand the calculus of negligence just fine, but it isn't relevant here. Hand's equation has nothing to say about the goals of society; all it says is that there must be certain restrictions on liability to allow a market society to function. And, as someone else is concurrently attempting to explain to you, the "loss" variable in the equation can't be quantified when we're talking about human lives.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    that's a good reason.
    girl killing her rapists, one year after the rape. punish her or let her go?
    punish her, but give her a light sentence due to extenuating circumstances. There are shades of gray, you know.

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    all your other points were repeats of stuff i've already addressed, albeit not to you directly. i would appreciate if you would read all my responses, not just the one i address to you.
    Linden wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    what i think a serial murderer deserves has no validity at all. what a state legislature, a judge and 12 jurors think a serial murderer deserves is the only thing that matters. and what the collective state thinks a serial murderer deserves is far more valid than what you think.

    Sadly, this is true. Amazingly, and I know that this may be a little difficult for you, the situation that we discuss here is one where we state what we believe should be done.

    This argument is on par with "it should be illegal because it is illegal". Valueless.

    are you in effect asking me why again?

    because ive already answered this a thousand times. a serial murderer rapist should die because he is a horrible fucking person. that's why i think he deserves to die. that's why i agree with the state when the state comes to the same conclusion (death penalty). that's why i disagree with the state when it comes to a different conclusion (imprisonment).

    can we stop going over the same ground again and again?

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Also, to respond to your other question, no, I don't believe the desire for retribution is the biggest problem with the death penalty. It is a problem, because retribution shouldn't be the goal our our justice system, but it is not the biggest problem, and I think the system does a pretty decent job of accounting for it, all else being equal.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    besides, it's not possible for the state to always give everyone what they deserve. it's just the goal that we seek, not the reality of the situation.

    Sounds like communism.

    actually i love communism in theory. i acknowledge that it would be difficult in reality.

    The goal of the state being the provider and to always give everyone what they "deserve" is unfeasible. It's not even a goal that we should seek, as that's essentially what went wrong with almost every socialist state that was ruled by a communist party during the 20th century.

    So, you're basing your ideal government on a horribly flawed system, and you're basing your notion of "justice" on some five-year-old's fantasy of everyone getting what they deserve.

    if you think communism has ever been practiced in the political history of mankind, you need to do some more critical thinking.

    something is not communism just because we label it so.
    Grow the fuck up.

    ooooooooo! scary, scary. hey, how about this? go to a good school, get a degree and get a good job. contribute to society. make your spouse really happy. raise good kids.

    then tell someone to grow up. because i bet you havent done a single one of those things.

    let's just keep the useless personal comments out of this okay? i guarantee i can piss you off more than you can piss me off.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    can we stop going over the same ground again and again?

    How about you summarize your arguments so we don't have to read ten pages of text?

    This isn't the only thread I'm involved in at this moment.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Linden wrote: »
    To utterly isolate those who pose a threat within prisons is still superior to death. Not all murderers cannot be rehabilitated.

    read the article please. they are isolated for 22.5 hours a day and given 90 minutes of exercist time.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Then isolate them longer. Let them exercise in isolation if they want.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    The article on the Aryan Brotherhood was discussed in the last Death Penalty thread. The problem is not that they cannot kill these "ring leaders", but that the people put in charge of incarcerating them are corruptable and are being payed off, then later when things are not going their way they complain to the state that these guys are out of control.

    Also, them saying that they "have tried everything but the death penalty" is blatantly false.

    in other words, you want to take away their "constitutional" rights to read and write mail, to make appeals and call witnesses, etc.

    in other words, lock them up for 24 hours a day, no communications with the outside world at all, forever.

    im fine with that in so much as that is equivalent to the death penalty.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    No, the solution is to recruit people who aren't bribe-vulnerable miscreants to be in charge of them.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    As I said, I'm a consequentialist. In this context, for all intents and purposes, capital punishment is state-sanctioned murder.

    This is not to say that I'm against state-sanctioned murder, or state-sanctioned kidnapping, or state-sanctioned assault and battery. Given good enough reasons, reasons which -- by my moral code -- involve superior consequences, I may be convinced that they are in fact acceptable routes to take. For instance, arresting a criminal is a necessary process of temporarily removing him from society while his actions are evaluated by authorities. However, same could not be said of capital punishment; it is not necessary. There are many alternatives that serve the same purpose, if we are concerned with public safety.

    The only reason for which you seem to be supporting CP is that, in your opinion, the person deserves to die. It is a very poor argument that doesn't have much substance to it.

    it's not the only reason. i accept that killing those aryan brotherhood gang leaders would do a lot for deterrence as well. but it is the main reason.

    perhaps, the difference lies in our outlooks on life. i am a principle-list (whatever that is) as opposed to a consequentialist. trying to hurt someone, but failing, is still bad.

    i guess you think failed assault and battery is no different from eating a chocolate cake.
    cp is done as humanely as possible

    Right, but isn't locking them away infinitely more humane than killing them? It seems very hypocritical to be concerned with humaneness when the action itself is inherently barbaric and inhumane.

    the point was, it's not like murder. i was exposing your comparison to be stupid, not proposing my own stance.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    that's a good reason.
    girl killing her rapists, one year after the rape. punish her or let her go?
    punish her, but give her a light sentence due to extenuating circumstances. There are shades of gray, you know.

    why even punish her?

    punishment in this case does not serve deterrence, detention or rehab purposes.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Of course it serves deterrent purposes. Killing for revenge is not okay, and is therefore met with punishment.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Then isolate them longer. Let them exercise in isolation if they want.

    i agree with you.

    all or most of their constitution rights would have to be stripped from them of course. and im not sure if 50 years in isolation counts as cruel and unusual punishment but probably it does.

    that being said, i agree.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Dyscord wrote: »
    No, the solution is to recruit people who aren't bribe-vulnerable miscreants to be in charge of them.

    that's not the only way they get orders out. they use mail and call brotherhood witnesses during appeals and use hand signals, etc.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    You lose all sorts of constitutional rights when you're incarcerated, regardless of your crime. What's your point?

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Of course it serves deterrent purposes. Killing for revenge is not okay, and is therefore met with punishment.

    no it doesnt. please read the thread. ive already addressed this. deterrence is a complicated thing and punishment is the least influencing factor.

    in short, letting oj and michael go didnt cause crime rates to go up.

    Ketherial on
Sign In or Register to comment.