Control Your Weeping

[Upchurch]

So why is it ethically permissible for me, as an individual, to shoot someone dead who breaks into my house and attacks me with a knife, but it is not ethically permissible for me to do the same as part of the larger community? Do I, as an individual, have rights that the larger community does not?

Not at all. Just as you have the right (both ethical and legal) to self-protection to an immediate threat, so does society in general.

However, the situations are not analogous. Once a criminal is caught, he is no longer an immediate threat. You, as an individual, do not have the right to walk up to a man in police custody and kill him "in self-defense". Likewise, a man in prison does not pose an immediate threat to society* so why should society have the right to kill him "in self-defense"?





* Granted, there is always the possibility of escape, but that is a practical problem with the prison system rather than a moral question, per se.

 

[BPSCG]

BPSCG (whatever his/her ...

I'll have Mrs. BPSCG check tonight. Full report will follow.

 

[BPSCG]

However, the situations are not analogous. Once a criminal is caught, he is no longer an immediate threat.

To me.

Likewise, a man in prison does not pose an immediate threat to society* so why should society have the right to kill him "in self-defense"?

Do you consider other prisoners to be part of society? Does he pose a threat to them? What should be done with the guy serving the life term for murder, who then kills someone in prison?

 

[Tony]

I'll have Mrs. BPSCG check tonight. Full report will follow.

Does she have a stong enough microscope?

 

[Upchurch]

And is the justification offered for killing the other person the only thing that differentiates me from a criminal? is it the only thing that differentiates society at large from the criminal? If not, then saying by killing the murderer, we become like him is a little like saying we're like Hitler because he liked dogs, too.

BTW, FWIW, this is getting a little far afield of the intent of my OP (unavoidably so, I suppose), which was not to get into another discussion of the death penalty, but rather to point up the nonsense that there are those who would have us feel sympathy for the plight of a mass murderer.

Well, frankly, my original point was not to argue the death penalty (which I do believe is immoral, but that's beside the point), but rather to address why it is important for us to provide the bare necessities to prisoners. At least, that was the question I was specifically answering.

To go waaay back to your OP, I am not shedding any tears over prisoners who are whining about their quality of life. As far as I'm concerned, that is something they absolutely forfeited upon committing whatever crime they committed. As far as I'm concerned, we have the responsibility to allow them to eat, sleep, and remain physically healthy. Beyond that, screw 'em.

 

[BPSCG]

As far as I'm concerned, we have the responsibility to allow them to eat, sleep, and remain physically healthy. Beyond that, screw 'em.

I'd be willing to abolish the death penalty in favor of a system of exile. Have the gummint buy up a few remote islands and for the most vicious criminals, offer them Ol' Sparky, or life in exile, with the understanding that once they leave, they have no rights under the law, and can be shot on sight if they return.

They would be thus no longer a threat to society, nor a burden.

 

[Roadtoad]

But you don't want to watch it.

One of my bigger complaints about capital punishment is that it takes place behind closed doors. It's no longer a public action, and less than 1 percent of all Americans, by my guess, have ever seen this action. The claim is that we don't want to make a circus out of it, but if I had to guess, it's because we don't want to be confronted by the reality of what it is we're doing.

And simply assigning this task to a group of reporters and other "hired guns" who act as witnesses to this action simply is not the answer. We'll never make a fully informed decision about capital punishment until we actually see one happen right before our eyes. Frankly, if I had to guess, I'm willing to bet it would end damn quick.

 

[Tony]

I'd be willing to abolish the death penalty in favor of a system of exile. Have the gummint buy up a few remote islands and for the most vicious criminals, offer them Ol' Sparky, or life in exile, with the understanding that once they leave, they have no rights under the law, and can be shot on sight if they return.

They would be thus no longer a threat to society, nor a burden.

I could potentially support that.

 

[BPSCG]

We'll never make a fully informed decision about capital punishment until we actually see one happen right before our eyes. Frankly, if I had to guess, I'm willing to bet it would end damn quick.

I'll take that bet. Even give you odds.

Once upon a time, hangings were a serious public event. When and why they started doing executions behind closed doors, I don't know, but when it was a public spectacle, there wasn't any outcry to put an end to it, AFAIK. okay, maybe we're more civilized now, but I'll bet if John Muhammad (the DC sniper) were to be hanged publically, he'd draw a crowd of cheering fans (there would also be no small number of people who would write very nice letters saying how very much they regretted being unable to attend).

Albert Camus wrote about the death penalty once. When he was a child, his father was all jazzed about a hanging, couldn't wait for the big day. The appointed day arrived, and daddy went to the execution, leaving mommy and Camus fils behind at home.

When Camus pere came home, he didn't say a word, but went straight to the bathroom and violently threw up.

 

[Suddenly]

Ever read about how the DP is done in Japan?

The procedure for execution in Japan is opaque and carried out in secrect. Executions are performed not at prisons, but at detention centers. Those on death row are never sent to prison, but remain in the detention center until an appeal is won or their execution is carried out. The method used is hanging, a procedure which has been abandoned in many places because it can result in beheading. Executions are usually carried out on Friday mornings, and convicts are not given advance notification. Surviving any Friday past nine a.m. guarantees another week of life. The names of the executed are never announced publicly, and the act of execution may not be acknowledged until well after the event. Even family and attorneys are not informed of the deaths firsthand - they learn of the executions when the detention center requests that a prisoner's possessions or ashes be picked up.

(emphesis added)

http://www.japanfile.com/culture_and_society/social_issues/death_penalty.shtml

Now that is some psychological stress....

 

[Upchurch]

Do you consider other prisoners to be part of society? Does he pose a threat to them? What should be done with the guy serving the life term for murder, who then kills someone in prison?

Civilized society? Assuming that they are, in fact, guilty and not incarcerated by mistake, no. A murderer in prison should idealy be of no threat to anyone. That prisoners are sometimes killed by other prisoners is a failing of the prison system as well as the murderer. Each should be held accountable for such an occurance.

I'd be willing to abolish the death penalty in favor of a system of exile. Have the gummint buy up a few remote islands and for the most vicious criminals, offer them Ol' Sparky, or life in exile, with the understanding that once they leave, they have no rights under the law, and can be shot on sight if they return.

They would be thus no longer a threat to society, nor a burden.

I find it interesting and a little disturbing that in the top quote you showed concern for the inmates locked up with a murderer in prison, but you seem to have no problem with inmates traped on an island with a murderer and no system of control or accountability.

It seems to me that you want all the perks of a civilized society with none of the responsibilities (or at least, a minimal few). What do you think "civilized" means, out of curosity and how does a society that collectively kills individual members fit into that definition?

 

[Roadtoad]

In all fairness to BPSCG, I believe what's being referred to is placing only those who are the most serious threat to society on such an island, Upchurch.

The only problem with this is that given the error rate in DP cases, not to mention that you have guys like Scott Peterson who are sent to Death Row on circumstantial evidence, (and in his case, VERY flimsy CE), the question becomes: when you have an innocent person returned to society, what kind of person will you have when they return?

I've said this before: the Death Penalty should ONLY be used in those instances when you have NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER as to the guilt of the parties in question.

One more thing: I forget the name of the psycho who was responsible for the Tokyo Nerve Gas Poisonings, but LP, given your expertise, (hell, you knew about Japan's DP), any word on his fate?

 

[Upchurch]

In all fairness to BPSCG, I believe what's being referred to is placing only those who are the most serious threat to society on such an island, Upchurch.

I realize, but..

The only problem with this is that given the error rate in DP cases,

...but you just gave my reply to your first comment. Plus, it does not necessarily remove those individuals from society permenently. Nor does it necessarily keep innocents from harm. There is no point on Earth that is totally unaccessable. Such an island merely becomes another type of prison that will still have to be monitered and checked.

I've said this before: the Death Penalty should ONLY be used in those instances when you have NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER as to the guilt of the parties in question.

I believe that this is at least necessary, but that it is not sufficent in a truly just society. The problem being that intentional killing is fundamentally an unjust act, even if it is agreed upon by a large group of people.

 

[BPSCG]

Civilized society? Assuming that they are, in fact, guilty and not incarcerated by mistake, no. A murderer in prison should idealy be of no threat to anyone. That prisoners are sometimes killed by other prisoners is a failing of the prison system as well as the murderer. Each should be held accountable for such an occurance.

And how do you hold someone serving a life sentence accountable? Give him another life sentence (that'll teach him!)?

Are you saying you're comfortable with the idea that even if some very large sociopath took it into his head to strangle one person every day while he was in prison, and found the means to do it, we should continue to provide for him? I realize that's an extreme example, but it appears to me to be the logical conclusion to your train of thought.

I find it interesting and a little disturbing that in the top quote you showed concern for the inmates locked up with a murderer in prison, but you seem to have no problem with inmates traped on an island with a murderer and no system of control or accountability.

My proposal would exile only vicious murderers. Do you have a problem with exiling only vicious murderers?

It seems to me that you want all the perks of a civilized society with none of the responsibilities (or at least, a minimal few).

"Minimal" responsibilities? Excuse me, but Mrs. BPSCG and I pay a shocking amount of taxes, keep our lawn mowed, and don't litter the streets. Paying to keep a murderer alive goes beyond "minimal."

What do you think "civilized" means, out of curosity

Oh, cripes, I'm not going to begin to answer that, because without going to dictionary.com, I can guarantee you there'll be a dozen different definitions. I'd say a society that can produce a Beethoven and a Goethe is a civilized society, except that that's the same society that can produce a Hitler. The same society that produced Shostakovich also produced Stalin. The same society that produced Abraham Lincoln also produced John Wilkes Booth.

 

[BPSCG]

The problem being that intentional killing is fundamentally an unjust act, even if it is agreed upon by a large group of people.

Why?

 

[CFLarsen]

One of my bigger complaints about capital punishment is that it takes place behind closed doors. It's no longer a public action, and less than 1 percent of all Americans, by my guess, have ever seen this action. The claim is that we don't want to make a circus out of it, but if I had to guess, it's because we don't want to be confronted by the reality of what it is we're doing.

And simply assigning this task to a group of reporters and other "hired guns" who act as witnesses to this action simply is not the answer. We'll never make a fully informed decision about capital punishment until we actually see one happen right before our eyes. Frankly, if I had to guess, I'm willing to bet it would end damn quick.

Agree completely.

 

[Ed]

Originally posted by Upchurch
The problem being that intentional killing is fundamentally an unjust act, even if it is agreed upon by a large group of people.

Why?

To which I would add "so?"

Who is defining "just" here?

We kill thousands every year. Mercy killings, pulling the plug and so on. Are these "unjust"? If so your concept of "just" seems to me to be unworkable in the real world and therefore of limited utility, if not, then intententional killing is not absolutely unjust.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Your thinly veiled insult ( ) actually re-raises an issue I mentioned earlier: There are no rights, individual or otherwise, that trump any other rights. The problem is, when people talk about their rights - particularly a right they believe is threatened - they talk as if those rights are indeed inviolable, when in fact, they are limited, and can be taken away from you, for just cause.

This is precisely the problem with moral "rights" as a guide to moral behaviour. There's no simple way to resolve conflicts between two different people's rights, and out of necessity everyone who propounds rights as a guide to conduct also has to make up a bunch of ancillary rules allowing them to suspend other people's rights when they feel it is a good idea.

As a result an awful lot of rot is talked about rights and it rarely gets anyone anywhere.

The Declaration of Independence speaks of the "inalienable" rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." But the Constitution provides that you can be deprived of life, liberty, and property as long as due process of law has been followed.

This just shows that the Constitution and the Declaration cannot be logically reconciled.

The point here is that if the Constitution provides you can have your property, your liberty, even your very life taken away from you for just cause, I want to know how that squares with the claim that you have a right to be kept alive at society's expense after having deliberately stalked, hunted down, raped, and slaughtered eight of society's members.

It would be a fairly nasty society if nobody ever got anything except that which they had a right to demand. Use every man after his desert, and who shall 'scape whipping?

A couple of points: 1) Our barbaric ancestors of a few centuries ago also hanged an eleven-year-old boy for burning down a shed, so careful who you invoke as your expert witness.

Spot the tu quoque argument.

2) The founding fathers of the USA would, in all likelihood, be mightily displeased if they existed today and were aware that the modern USA sports citizens who didn't think anyone should be executed for any crime, no matter how vicious.

If they knew how long it takes to get someone executed they might well agree.

But when there's no question of guilt, what is the purpose of the charade of endless appeals? In the current case, there was no question of his guilt and he admitted to the crimes, and gave up on his appeals in 1998. And he apparently didn't stop the appeals because he found prison life so miserable (getting back to the OP), but because: But the "liberal softies" Kevin speaks of kept the appeals going for another seven years anyway, demanding that a known killer be kept alive at taxpayer expense, against the wishes of the killer himself and his victims' families.

Who's inflicting the "cruel and unusual punishment" here?

I am not sure how you could have missed this fact, but a number of people who oppose the death penalty on moral grounds make a point of doing everything legally possible to frustrate all attempts to carry out capital punishment.

If you are against the death penalty across the board then there is nothing inconsistent about frustrating someone's wish to be executed.

Who's responsible for the waste of taxpayer dollars with this abuse of the appeals process?

You are assuming what you ought to prove, that this is a waste of money and that it is an abuse of the process.

How many more poor people could have gotten medical care, how many more poor kids could have gone to Head Start, how many more beds could have been put into battered women's shelters, how many more drug addicts could have gotten into treatment clinics, all on the money wasted keeping Michael Ross alive for the last seven years?

How many innocent and even not-so-innocent lives have been spared because men and women of conscience opposed the death penalty at every turn? For that matter how many poor, lost baby sparrows could be rescued and snuggled for the price of building and maintaining an execution chamber? How far do you really expect to get hiding behind loaded rhetorical questions in this forum?

 

[Upchurch]

The problem being that intentional killing is fundamentally an unjust act, even if it is agreed upon by a large group of people.

Why?

To which I would add "so?"

And here I thought liberals were supposed to be the moral relativists. Maybe I have your political orientations confused.

As succinctly as possible, murder is inherently unjust because it is the intentional and forcible taking, without consent, by an outside party of that which does not belong to them.

Or, according to Shakespeare

Hamlet: You cannot, sir, take from me anything that I will more willingly part withal--except my life--except my life--except my life. (II.ii)

While I'm at it, would you like me to explain why theft, rape, and the 9-11 attacks were also wrong? It's a very similar explanation.

Smart-arse comments aside, honestly, what kind of question is that? Do you really not know why or care that murder is unjust? Are you really trying to argue that because he performed an unjust action, it is okay to perform that unjust action on him?

We kill thousands every year. Mercy killings, pulling the plug and so on. Are these "unjust"?

We weren't talking about mercy killing and pulling the plug. From the context of talking about murderers and the death penalty, I thought it was fairly obvious what sort of intentional killing I was referring to.

However, euthanasia is not analogous to murder. These situations, one would hope, are ones where consent was given either by the individual in question or by those that individual has allowed to speak on their behalf. Given the numbers provided earlier in this thread, it seems 84% of death row inmates are not readily willing to hand over consent.

If so your concept of "just" seems to me to be unworkable in the real world and therefore of limited utility, if not, then unintentional killing is not absolutely unjust.

I never said morality and justice was necessarily workable in the real world. Especially in a world that apparently neither knows nor cares about such ideals, I find it increasingly unlikely that it could work.

BPSCG, you said you want the benefits of a civilized society, but I think it is increasingly clear that what you really want are the benefits of a "might-makes-right" society where you are in the majority. In other words, an individual murdering another individual is wrong, but a large group of individuals murdering an individual is okay. That is fine, if that is what you want, but don't confuse it for being a civilized society.

 

[Zep]

I'd be willing to abolish the death penalty in favor of a system of exile. Have the gummint buy up a few remote islands and for the most vicious criminals, offer them Ol' Sparky, or life in exile, with the understanding that once they leave, they have no rights under the law, and can be shot on sight if they return.

They would be thus no longer a threat to society, nor a burden.

Hey, I said that first! No fair...

And you can even save on the electricity bill by leaving out the Ol' Sparky option (or the cost of drugs for an injection, or the rope for a hanging, or the bullets for a firing squad). You do the crime, you do the time...rotting somewhere else.