The death penalty.

[jharyn]

ETA wrong thread.

 

[Two Toed Sloth]

I guess if your bowel movements rape, murder, and eat children, then describe the act to the parents through a letter, then sure let's hang your poop..

You misunderstand me sir (and I'm sure it is not on purpose). Why do you think your relief enters into the justification of taking another's life?

 

[dirtywick]

You misunderstand me sir (and I'm sure it is not on purpose). Why do you think your relief enters into the justification of taking another's life?

It was as deliberate as comparing relief from the grief for effected families seeing justice and the general public on ridding itself of a dangerous criminal to feeling better after a bowel movement.

It's the same justification for relief by penalty of imprisonment. It's the justification for a lot of crimes, invoking justice on behalf of a harmed party.

.
Ever tried to put a string around poop?
About all you could do is put it in a paper bag and set it on your neighbor's doorstep, light the bag, ring the bell, and wait in the bushes.

Poop is funny.

 

[Babbylonian]

It was as deliberate as comparing relief from the grief for effected families seeing justice and the general public on ridding itself of a dangerous criminal to feeling better after a bowel movement.

If grieving families need relief, that's what psychiatrists are for. Indulging the desire for revenge, AFAIK, isn't a recognized medical technique.

It's the same justification for relief by penalty of imprisonment. It's the justification for a lot of crimes, invoking justice on behalf of a harmed party.

Prisons are supposed to be for the protection of the public and [hopefully] the rehabilitation/correction of criminal behavior, not the happy good feelings of crime victims.

The bottom line for me is that the finality of the death penalty as a punishment outweighs the standards for conviction in our legal system. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" as determined in a courtroom is good enough to put someone in prison but I don't think it's nearly good enough to kill, and I don't care if they're being convicted of killing one 80-year-old or forty 2-year-olds.

 

[dirtywick]

Prisons are supposed to be for the protection of the public and [hopefully] the rehabilitation/correction of criminal behavior, not the happy good feelings of crime victims.

I think they are intended to serve all three purposes. Justice does.

The bottom line for me is that the finality of the death penalty as a punishment outweighs the standards for conviction in our legal system. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" as determined in a courtroom is good enough to put someone in prison but I don't think it's nearly good enough to kill, and I don't care if they're being convicted of killing one 80-year-old or forty 2-year-olds.

Like I said, it's all philosophy at that point. Your opinion on the punishment is no more valid than anyone else's.

 

[Babbylonian]

Like I said, it's all philosophy at that point. Your opinion on the punishment is no more valid than anyone else's.

Maybe.

I do wonder, though, if all those who go all weak in the knees over the pain of murder victims' families ever consider the pain of capital punishment victims' families -- especially the wrongly convicted victims.

 

[dirtywick]

Maybe.

I do wonder, though, if all those who go all weak in the knees over the pain of murder victims' families ever consider the pain of capital punishment victims' families -- especially the wrongly convicted victims.

It must be considered, amongst many other things. The wrongly convicted especially, and not only the harm done to their families but the inevitability of it happening.

 

[Two Toed Sloth]

It was as deliberate as comparing relief from the grief for effected families seeing justice and the general public on ridding itself of a dangerous criminal to feeling better after a bowel movement.

It's the same justification for relief by penalty of imprisonment. It's the justification for a lot of crimes, invoking justice on behalf of a harmed party.

As I have said already, and will no doubt say again, sending people to prison is not to satisfy the family's need for vengeance, it is so that these people who have proven themselves to be dangerous can be stopped from posing a threat.

What then is the justification for killing them? Does it really just boil down to some ones need to gain relief?

 

[dirtywick]

As I have said already, and will no doubt say again, sending people to prison is not to satisfy the family's need for vengeance, it is so that these people who have proven themselves to be dangerous can be stopped from posing a threat.

I don't think that's the only reason as I've said already, and I don't think we need to keep going in circles over it.

What then is the justification for killing them? Does it really just boil down to some ones need to gain relief?

Not at all. Justice. Threat prevention. Punishment. Restitution.

 

[Corsair 115]

Let's imagine that I was about to execute someone. You ask me why. I say, "Well, he's a litterbug. Nobody wants to pick up his garbage. We've gotta get rid of him." You would probably say that this is not a very good reason, and you'd be right.

No, I would say, "That sentence appears entirely disproportionate to the severity of the crime."

Let's try an experiment. Replace the words "execute someone" in your comment with the words "send someone to prison for ten years." We then get the following:

Let's imagine that I was about to send someone to prison for ten years. You ask me why. I say, "Well, he's a litterbug. Nobody wants to pick up his garbage. We've gotta get rid of him [for ten years]." You would probably say that this is not a very good reason, and you'd be right.

Does the above substitution change in any meaningful way the thrust of your statement?

 

[Corsair 115]

I was only trying to suggest you answer have more emphasis on exactly why you feel that reason warrants this punishment.

It's not something that can be arrived at in a mathematical manner. It's a personal judgement about what constitutes reasonable and proportionate punishment for a given type of crime. There are no right answers to that question because it is a subjective one.

A person is convicted of assaulting someone else and breaking their arm. What sentence is appropriate for the offence of assulting someone and breaking their arm? Is probation a suitable penalty? What about a week in jail? What about two weeks in jail? How about a month? A year? Two years? Five years? Ten years? Which of these penalties is proportionate to the crime and which are not?

I suspect we might have some agreement on which penalties are too severe and which are too lenient, but I'd wager we'd disagree on some too, thus demonstrating the rather subjective nature of determining what constitutes a proportionate punishment for a crime.

I don't feel there is necessarily a price to be paid.

It would depend entirely on the nature and severity of the offence, it seems to me. If it is something small, then perhaps justice is best served by a minor punishment or none at all. But if the offence is something more serious, then the severity of the offence ought to take priority. To put it another way, some mistakes are excusable, but other mistakes—ones which carry a significant impact—are not.