Death Penalty

[Evil Gemini]

Originally posted by creamer@3 January 2004 - 15:01
i say, too the fire with you.

some people just dont belong or deserve to be in this world

i agree 100%

[clocker]

Originally posted by ilw@3 January 2004 - 06:51
I was thinking about this thread yesterday and it occured to me that morally i don't actually believe in justice. Although i haven't checked the definition of justice, it implies to me some form of retribution along the lines of an eye for an eye etc. if it were possible to rehabilitate/reform people without punishment then for me that would be ideal. Obviously its totally implausible at the moment, but does anyone agree with the sentiment ie in a better world punishment (and i suppose deterrence by proxy) serve no real purpose.
ie i'm arguing that punishment is simply curretnly the most expedient way of achievign an aim, rather than something you feel ethically should actually happen.

Since you don't seem willing to expend the minimal effort it takes to "actually look up the definition", I'll do it for you...Merry Christmas.

Main Entry: jus·tice
Pronunciation: 'j&s-t&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English & Old French; Old English justice, from Old French justice, from Latin justitia, from justus
Date: 12th century
1 a : the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments b : JUDGE c : the administration of law; especially : the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity
2 a : the quality of being just, impartial, or fair b (1) : the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action (2) : conformity to this principle or ideal : RIGHTEOUSNESS c : the quality of conforming to law
3 : conformity to truth, fact, or reason : CORRECTNESS

Now...what part of that gives you moral pause?

does anyone agree with the sentiment ie in a better world punishment  (and i suppose deterrence by proxy) serve no real purpose. 

Gee whiz....except for the maintainence of your theoretical "better world" no, I suppose that punishmant serves no purpose whatsoever.

Why is the administration of punishment ( and, by implication, the granting of reward) ethically abhorrent?

On a side note: How do you reconcile your obvious Utopian world view with your sig?

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Biggles@2 January 2004 - 20:18

A number of hypothetical situations have been posed (some of which lead me to conclude that some board members live in a war zone). I don't think there is any evidence to suggest the death penalty prevents murders. Did Al Capone and his contempories worry overly or did they just ensure that there were no living witnesses? 1920s Chicago was a pretty rough place by all accounts - possibly still is.

That was "Al Capone and his contempories" not everyone.

Think about this:

If you, Biggles, killed someone for stepping on your your shoes.
You were caught on camera and a judge told you to stand in the corner with gum on your nose for 5 minutes as punishment, would you be more or less likely to do this crime again?

Some of you have your nose so far into books and statistics that common sense is out the window.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by ilw@3 January 2004 - 09:51
I was thinking about this thread yesterday and it occured to me that morally i don't actually believe in justice. Although i haven't checked the definition of justice, it implies to me some form of retribution along the lines of an eye for an eye etc. if it were possible to rehabilitate/reform people without punishment then for me that would be ideal. Obviously its totally implausible at the moment, but does anyone agree with the sentiment ie in a better world punishment (and i suppose deterrence by proxy) serve no real purpose.
ie i'm arguing that punishment is simply curretnly the most expedient way of achievign an aim, rather than something you feel ethically should actually happen.

Ian, I think that spliff is tainted.

I suggest you douse it and switch to a different product. B)

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Busyman@3 January 2004 - 20:16
Some of you have your nose so far into books and statistics that common sense is out the window.

That may be the case, however anyone who puts such high stock on "common sense" deserves little attention given to their opinion. To believe that the death penalty is an effective deterrent, simply because you think it is logical and "common sense" is an untenable position.

Someone once said that common sense was just our collection of prejudices and preconceptions. That being the case, one man's common sense may not equate to another's.

I think you will find that the people here have a wide range of experiences in life. These discussions are not just based on things we have read. However we do not dismiss things, simply because we have only read them. As Kurt Vonnegut said, if you can read you can think the thoughts of Angels (I paraphrase).

I have dealt with various murderers, in real life and in person. I have dealt with a multiple murderer who killed a husband and wife, in cold blood, over a drug debt. I have dealt with people who based their businesses on punishment beatings and were capable of horrendous acts of violence, the results of which I have seen. Other people here have a great deal of life's experience and have made choices (for real) which have had far reaching effects on them, their families and others.

I for one do not appreciate condescension from yet another "common sense" merchant. It is the last resort of those who cannot support their position or opinion based on facts.

Your "analogy" posed to Biggles is totally flawed. Change it to, spend the rest of your life in a maximum security prison. Where your every move is controlled. You eat what and when you are told. You excercise when you are told. You see people when it is allowed. You lose any control over your own existence and you are in danger of getting buggered senseless on a regular basis. Then it is more valid than trying to defend your position by comparing it to the patently preposterous.

[vidcc]

the death penalty is not a deterent, it is a punishment pure and simple. it doesn't stop capitol crime being comitted, but it certainly stops the person that is being executed doing the same thing again.
laws and punishment are supposed to be deterents and to a degree they are...obviously or many more would commit crime..however they are not 100% deterent.
if the objection to the death penalty is purely based on the fact that it doesn't deter everyone then the same could be said of all laws and penalties.
i do appreciate that most objections are not that simple so we don't need corrections to this.
the death sentence is the ultimate punishment and isn't handed out willie nilly...well not here at least..not only the crime is taken into account but all the circumstances that led to it.




i wish i knew the name of the person that said it but one person on death row stated that he was not sorry he comitted his crime, but he was sorry he got caught. he also said he didn't want to die but admitted he probably deserved to for what he did.

[Biggles]

Thank you J'Pol

I shall attempt this with more than the recommended amount of Glenlivet's finest - having just returned from a belated New Year party.

Busyman,

The simple fact is that Al Capone and his contemporaries were the "organised gang crime" of 1920s Chigaco. Yes, other murders did occur, but mostly murders outside such gangland killings were crimes of passion. No penalty devised yet by man has deterred the latter.

So I believe the position I argued regarding the benefit of our penal codes to our respective societies stands.

Putting aside understandable emotions in the face of awful crimes, what serves our societies best? You may argue that executions are most effective but this can only be on the basis that it creates greater social cohesion and (to use an awful modern term) societal goal congruence. The argument that it deters murder is unproven as the EU, which has a larger population than the US, and no executions, has a lower murder rate than the US (by some considerable margin).

I cannot speak fot the US as I am not part of that culture and society, but I believe the EU position is right for the EU and I do support it. I think to re-introduce the death penalty after 40+ years would be a backwards step and achieve little and perhaps less than a little.

Looking back over the decades, in the UK in particular, a considerable number of innocent people would have been murdered by the State if we still had the death penalty. (The Guildford four and the Birmingham six to name but 10).

To be guilty of murdering the innocent makes the law no better than the common murderer thus diminishing its credibility and standing in the public eye. As I hold that law only works if most people subscribe to its basic fairness and applicability, then such a situation can only impair the social fabric that we need to cover ourselves. In short, the death penalty does not serve us well.

I appreciate this is a somewhat Utilitarian approach to the subject but I have considerable sympathy for J'Pol's position too; which I understand has a more spiritual context to it and is none the worse for that.

I do hope this makes sense, as the screen has become has blurred to my eyes as my brain has to the whisky (this has been proof read about ten times to get the typos out).

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Biggles@4 January 2004 - 06:26
Busyman,

The simple fact is that Al Capone and his contemporaries were the "organised gang crime" of 1920s Chigaco. Yes, other murders did occur, but mostly murders outside such gangland killings were crimes of passion. No penalty devised yet by man has deterred the latter.

Do you know what a deterrent is?

If I kill someone, get the death penalty, and say that I'd do it again if I had the chance, you are then saying, "See it doesn't work."

You are looking at people that have already done the crime. What a joke.

The real study would be to poll people that have not done the crime.
Ask them if under certain circumstances would they do the crime.
Don't get me wrong, I some folks would abstain from crime due to their own morals regardless of the consequences of law.

@J'Pol -there are levels of deterrence.

Point taken about life in prison..
but there are those who have been in and out of jail their whole life but losing there life is out of the question. There is a big difference.
Life imprisonment is a deterrent
...but so is the death penalty.

To say it is an ineffective deterrent means it is still a deterrent and there still has an efffect.

edit @Biggles- I agree about crimes of passion- spur of the moment, or "I don't give a fuck about anything anymore" crimes.

[Biggles]

Busyman

I understand what you are saying. However, I am working from the pespective that the overwhelming majority of people are stakeholders in a stable society and would not even contemplate stealing lost property let alone kill someone.

Perhaps I am too removed from the society you live in. By your logic the EU with "light penalties" should be over-run with crime. On the other hand, the US with harsher penalties should have much less crime. Is this in fact the case?

:clover: This has nothing to do with my argument above, it is for J'Pol and Lamsey - as a neutral I celebrate their happiness.

[Billy_Dean]

To say that the death penalty is no deterent is an obviously flawed view. I have sympathy for JP's view, but common sense, in some cases is obviously correct.

I myself plotted to murder someone in England many years ago, a paedophile. My good friends on this forum know this story. I intended it to look like manslaughter. Had I got away with it I would have spent a very few years in prison. Had it gone wrong, and I'd been found guilty of murder, the consequences would have been more severe, but manageable. Life imprisonment in England was 12 years, I don't know the situation now, but I believe you can get out now in less. It is not the rest of your life, except in exceptional circumstances. Now, had there been a risk of my being executed, I would not have taken the chance. I don't know how many people here have been to prison, I have, in England and Morocco. For some, prison is hard, for most it is easy. When you get in you find your place, your mates, and you suss out your surroundings, the rest is easy.

Now, if the death penalty would have detered me, and I'm only one of 6,000,000 people, common sense will tell you that it must deter others. I'm not putting figures on this, I don't care if it's only two of us, every time someone is detered, it saves a life.

This is not a pro death penalty post.