The death penalty.

[Soapy Sam]

War needs it's own set of morals.

Well, that's all right then.

Let's declare war on crime. And the causes of crime.

 

[Soapy Sam]

If you cannot explain why it is true, then it is, by definition, irrational.

Why does 1 + 1 = 2?

 

[Two Toed Sloth]

Why does 1 + 1 = 2?

Are you suggesting that allowing the death penalty is axiomatic ???

 

[dirtywick]

What is the basis for your judgment that those who kill others must in-turn be killed? You have not shown why this is true, despite your many repetitions of the claim.

If you cannot explain why it is true, then it is, by definition, irrational.

Not "must".

Both sides agree they should be punished. Death is a form of punishment, therefore death is an option for punishment.

Well, that's all right then.

Let's declare war on crime. And the causes of crime.

I'm not sure taking "war" out of your own context is the best way to make a point.

 

[Two Toed Sloth]

A fair bit is being made of this 'both side want to see the criminal punished' thing. The thing is with prison the punishment is incidental, the main concern is protection to the rest of society.
The death penalty on the other hand seems largely touted as a method of retribution.

It is not that I don't want the criminal to be punished, it is that it serves no purpose.

 

[Soapy Sam]

dirtywick-
I'm not making a point. I'm seeking an explanation.
Why is it acceptable to kill total strangers in a country few of us ever visited, but not acceptable to kill a person who has broken numerous laws repeatedly, but happens to be British?

You have offered a response, for which, thanks- but it merely opens the whole can of worms about defining morality. Let's forget morality for a minute. I want to know why people find one acceptable, but not the other. Is it that they don't think it likely they will be bombed by the RAF, but possible they will find themselves in the dock for murder?
Is it just that Afghans don't count as human?
Is it just that most people never consider the matter at all?
Or what?

 

[dirtywick]

the main concern is protection to the rest of society.

Might be incidental to some more concerned with punishment. To me it's both, society needs to be protected and crimes need to be punished.

 

[dirtywick]

dirtywick-
I'm not making a point. I'm seeking an explanation.
Why is it acceptable to kill total strangers in a country few of us ever visited, but not acceptable to kill a person who has broken numerous laws repeatedly, but happens to be British?

You have offered a response, for which, thanks- but it merely opens the whole can of worms about defining morality. Let's forget morality for a minute. I want to know why people find one acceptable, but not the other. Is it that they don't think it likely they will be bombed by the RAF, but possible they will find themselves in the dock for murder?
Is it just that Afghans don't count as human?
Is it just that most people never consider the matter at all?
Or what?

To me they're both acceptable, though I think the death penalty isn't the best option for reasons unrelated to morality.

Anyway, war is necessary. Wars can't be fought at all if service members are expected to conduct themselves in the same way a citizen would. It's all circumstance.

 

[Soapy Sam]

See what I mean?

Anyway, war is necessary. Wars can't be fought at all if service members are expected to conduct themselves in the same way a citizen would.

Well, we certainly wouldn't want that, would we? If wars couldn't be fought at all, lots of defence jobs would be lost...

Forgive my sarcasm. My point here is that you beautifully illustrate the assumption of the double standard I refer to. You take it for granted that war is necessary, that killing in war is acceptable and that therefore any rule or argument that militates against execution of convicts does not apply in the war context.

How do you feel about the execution of prisoners of war? Would that be less / more acceptable than execution of civilian convicts, even if the POWs had not been tried and convicted of anything?

 

[Halfcentaur]

What "primitive urge" was Steven Hayes engaging in when he drove Jennifer Hawke-Petit to her bank to withdraw $10,000 so she could try to save her life and the lives of her daughters?

What "primitive urge" was Steven Hayes engaging in when he drove to a gas station, bought gas and poured around the house, murdering three when they never even resisted?

What are you saying it is, the force of evil? Yes, it is biological urges that drive these people to do these things. Animals are sadistic, at times, apes especially so. We only place a value on it because we have developed culture and morals. But in a way these are an illusion, though an illusion I give much credence towards. These people doing these things are acting on the systems of nature. We pretend to be separate to live in large groups successfully and attempt to limit the amount of stress and pain we go through and keep others from experiencing what we would not want to experience.

There is nothing irrational about emotions. To look at another person and desire their death is not inherently bad. You can't control the way you feel.

Action, however, is different. Whereas a desire for revenge is not irrational, it is another matter entirely to act solely upon those desires, all the while pretending that you are not killing another human being so that you might derive pleasure from death.

In this sense, yes, entropy and violence are rational processes, but acting on them in light of the world of order and safety our culture desires is when it's irrational. When I say emotional responses like revenge and "deserving" something are irrational, I am saying they have no place in the idealized moral system of culture and ethics, and rational discourse. The more we learn to reason and use logic and maintain a level head, the farther we divorce ourselves from desiring to tear the jawbone off of a rival male of our own species. Yes, you can argue that it's rational for a male animal to tear the jaw off a fellow male, but not in the context I was alluding towards.

I find the concept of revenge a relic of behavior with a foundation in reactionary behavior void of rational discourse.

As for capitol punishment as a detterent, the idea that the death penalty is a deterrent is laughable once a person gets to the point of being capable of murder and is filled with the desire. It only acts as a deterrent in the system we all agree to live in on a day to day basis, but the system we are agreeing to abide by already carries that rule, the severity of the punishment I would argue is no more or less a deter ant than the concept of shame and empathy. Shame and empathy are enough to deter homicidal behavior, once someone is beyond violating those concepts with no heed for the taboo of the act, nothing else is going to deter them barring intervention of some sort.

I forget what documentary it was that I was watching, but I recall hearing that it seems we are developing more and more synaptic connections with the emotional regions of our brains, giving us more and more control in resisting these impulses. It is this desire to resist these basic impulses that I am perhaps in error of calling rational behavior. I would still say it's what we pride ourselves upon separating us from the apes. An ape cannot control it's rage, I can.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Shame and empathy are enough to deter homicidal behavior, once someone is beyond violating those concepts with no heed for the taboo of the act, nothing else is going to deter them barring intervention of some sort.

All the more reason to intervene early and hard. If first offenders were severely treated, might recidivism be reduced? Some people kill because they are driven to it through years of torment.

Others do it for a giggle.

The ones we need to control are those in whom "shame and empathy" are weakest.

The need for execution should not be a baseline in any system of justice. It is the final necessity after all social regulation and justice has failed. If our social systems worked, it might never be needed.
They do not work that well.


ETA -Permit me a pedantic niggle.
. It's capitAl punishment-from the Latin for "head" and implying beheading. CapitOl punishment is what we should reserve for senior politicians. Something far worse than death, would be my preference.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Then you are agreeing with me? The death penalty deters nobody? Or are you saying those who are weakest in regard to shame and empathy will respond to the threat of being killed if they are not careful with their regard for others because the taboo and shame of the act is not a factor in their choice?

I don't see a need for it, especially with the questions it creates. Apparently much of the world we Americans consider our equals agree, and I only hope we come to that point as well some day.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Perhaps it is petty of me, but whenever I hear this topic brought up in the real world environment of work and school, I can never imagine those speaking in favor of capitol punishment capable of doing it with their own hand. I think they may change their mind if it came down to more than pushing a button and having it dealt with by something else. I know I couldn't do it.

Now, if someone dear to me was a victim of something like this, I regret to say that I would probably be overwhelmed with homicidal rage. I have issues with anger, I black out and see red and strangle things without realizing it, on the very rare occasions in my life when I am threatened and cornered. Perhaps it is my self shame that creates in me this disgust and trepidation in seeing similar acts sanctioned by the state. I want my system of justice to be above this, and better than we are, as much as we can make it with our limitations and emotional pitfalls.

 

[Halfcentaur]

I also grew up witness to my mother being struck in the mouth and nose with the butt of a shotgun by my father, and other delightful acts like this regularly over the first 7 years or so of my life. I am acutely disgusted and have a strong aversion to conflict and violence when I see it in other people. Even a strong disagreement at times in other people spurs me into attempting to mediate and make it stop. It can make me vomit or have panic attacks. Perhaps it is my experience with violence and my subsequent issues with it that inspires a bias within me I am not seeing, but I feel nobility as well in the act of opposing this sort of thing. Of course this is not something a victim or family member of murder and torture would want to hear or understand, but it is a privileged frame of reference I feel to be able to divorce myself from that and remain impartial.

 

[dirtywick]

See what I mean?
Well, we certainly wouldn't want that, would we? If wars couldn't be fought at all, lots of defence jobs would be lost...

Forgive my sarcasm. My point here is that you beautifully illustrate the assumption of the double standard I refer to. You take it for granted that war is necessary, that killing in war is acceptable and that therefore any rule or argument that militates against execution of convicts does not apply in the war context.

How do you feel about the execution of prisoners of war? Would that be less / more acceptable than execution of civilian convicts, even if the POWs had not been tried and convicted of anything?

What double standard? World peace isn't here and you can't fight a war without killing people under normal circumstances. That's unavoidable reality. Being a citizen doesn't necessitate killing under normal circumstances. I don't see what's confusing there.

Execution of prisoners of war should be avoided if possible. Being the enemy isn't a crime.

 

[jharyn]

Remind me not to bother petitioning on your behalf if you ever find yourself one of these people.

Rolfe.

If I was one of these people, I wouldn't deserve it.

 

[jharyn]

Then you are agreeing with me? The death penalty deters nobody? Or are you saying those who are weakest in regard to shame and empathy will respond to the threat of being killed if they are not careful with their regard for others because the taboo and shame of the act is not a factor in their choice?

I don't see a need for it, especially with the questions it creates. Apparently much of the world we Americans consider our equals agree, and I only hope we come to that point as well some day.

Where is the poll you took to back this up? The ones I've seen disagree with you.

I consider everyone our equals. What are you implying here? We aren't special.

 

[jharyn]

I also grew up witness to my mother being struck in the mouth and nose with the butt of a shotgun by my father, and other delightful acts like this regularly over the first 7 years or so of my life. I am acutely disgusted and have a strong aversion to conflict and violence when I see it in other people. Even a strong disagreement at times in other people spurs me into attempting to mediate and make it stop. It can make me vomit or have panic attacks. Perhaps it is my experience with violence and my subsequent issues with it that inspires a bias within me I am not seeing, but I feel nobility as well in the act of opposing this sort of thing. Of course this is not something a victim or family member of murder and torture would want to hear or understand, but it is a privileged frame of reference I feel to be able to divorce myself from that and remain impartial.

Privileged frame of reference? Whatever.

I am not afraid to speak my mind and stand up for what I believe in. You go ahead and remain impartial on this one. I will not.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Deleted duplicate post

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

If I was one of these people, I wouldn't deserve it.

He meant if you were an innocent person wrongly sentenced to death, which he wrote in response to you posting about how you aren't at all concerned for such people.