Control Your Weeping

[Zep]

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.

Aside: They were taken from public view because hanging is not an exact science. The intention in a hanging is to break the neck and spinal chord, thus causing instant death. However this process has so many dependencies - weight of body, strength of neck, swiftness of trap, length of drop, thickness of rope, etc, etc - that it was rare to get an "optimum" execution.

The two major problems were that the neck was not broken, and the condemned was left alive but choked slowly to death, or the drop was so swift that the condemned was actually partially or fully decapitated by the force of the drop, an extremely messy and painful affair all round. As Camus pere would probably have testified. Eventually it was decreed that public hangings were not a decent sight after all, and that, like an abbottoir, their internal mechanisms were best left unsighted by the general public.

In the early days, it was not unusual for relatives of a choking hanged man to throw themselves on him and hasten his death (and thus relieve his suffering) by adding their bodyweight. In more recent times, various types of "death squads" deliberately scared the local populace and especially any resistants by hanging caught victims slowly (i.e. choking them) over a long period in public. Sometimes thin wire (e.g. piano wire) was used to increase the agony.

Interestingly, one of the most bizarre hangings was of an elephant(!). It had killed one of its trainers, I seem to recall, and so was condemned to hang.

 

[LW]

Aside: They were taken from public view because hanging is not an exact science.

And mistakes during executions caused numerous lynchings of executioners. I can't give you exact data since my copy of Keskiajan pyövelit ("The Medieval Executioners" -- slightly misleading name since it includes data also from 16th and 17th centuries) is away, but the court archieves from all over Europe contain references to cases where the executioner was killed by the mob after a failed execution.

 

[Upchurch]

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

When the guy killed someone in general society, the punishment is to remove him from that society. If the guy then kills someone in prison society, what is the next logical step? Simple remove him from that prison society (i.e. solitary confinement) or perform the exact same crime on him that he is being punished for?

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.

What? I have no idea how you reached that conclusion from anything that I have said, at least not without a great deal of assumptions.

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

I have a problem with providing them that much freedom and lack of supervision. There is no consideration for tracking who arrives at and who leaves the exile island.

"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."

Sorry, but not for wanting to live in a civilized society, it doesn't. How is it justified for a "civilized" society to perform the very act that it is punishing when less extreme measures are available that solve the problem just as well? It isn't even a matter of practicality, since a life sentence is supposedly cheaper. The death penalty is a matter of revenge, plain and simple. It is hypocritical.

 

[BPSCG]

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.

Well, yeah. The commonly-used term to describe what you call "ancillary rules" is "laws," which set limits on your rights.

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

Which do you believe should take precedence?

It would be a fairly nasty society if nobody ever got anything except that which they had a right to demand.

Well, it would be a society that didn't have charity, and I certainly wouldn't want to live in such a society, a society without a Salvation Army or homeless shelters or the Jaycees.

But I also wouldn't want to live in a society where charity is a right.

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.

Pardon me, but it was you who first invoked our "barbaric ancestors" as the authority for condemning my position on the DP. Don't tell me you're allowed to cite them in support of your position and I am forbidden to cite them in refutation of your position.

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.

Neither you nor I know whether that statement is true or false; all we know is that they did not provide for any particular excuses for not imposing the death penalty after due process of law.

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.

I'm not a lawyer, so if someone wants to straighten me out here, I'd appreciate it. These anti-death penalty busybodies have no legal standing: They are not the victim of the murderer, they are not the victim's family, they are not the murderer, and they are not the murderer's legal representative.

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.

Are you claiming that keeping Ross alive for seven years after he decided to stop his appeals cost nothing? Who was paying for the cost of his food, clothing, shelter, and medical care during that time? Who was paying the court costs for hearings he had no interest in pursuing?

How far do you really expect to get hiding behind loaded rhetorical questions in this forum?

My point here was that pointless appeals, where there's no question of the convicted man's guilt, have a cost to society. I can understand, and even support, those who fight against an execution in the belief that the guy's truly innocent (or that his guilt hasn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt).

But those who oppose every execution undercut their own argument that we shouldn't do it because we could be executing an innocent man. There are plenty of cases - this one, for example - where the guy is guilty not just beyond a reasonable doubt, but even an unreasonable one. I owe this man nothing, especially not my tax dollars to pay for his care for the rest of his life.

 

[Kerberos]

Well, it would be a society that didn't have charity, and I certainly wouldn't want to live in such a society, a society without a Salvation Army or homeless shelters or the Jaycees.

But I also wouldn't want to live in a society where charity is a right.

Then you sure have a problem, oh well, I've heard that Somalia is wonderfull this time of year.

 

[BPSCG]

Smart-arse comments aside, honestly, what kind of question is that? Do you really not know why or care that murder is unjust?

No, I understand that perfectly well. My "why?" was directed at your statement that

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.

My "why?" was asking why the fact that it was agreed on by a large group of people makes it unjust. In other words, what is your theory as to why society does not have the right to kill someone who has caused grievous, irreparable damage and is too vicious to be let loose any more?

Why does society have an obligation feed him and shelter him, if it did not have that obligation before he committed his crimes?

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.

So are you okay with the execution of the remaining 16 per cent?

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.

(emphasis mine) First off, I'll try to not take offense at your suggestion that what I want "are the benefits of a "might-makes-right" society where [I am} in the majority." My parents were a minority in such a society, and that's the only reason I was born in the U.S.; my ancestors would have been used for soap if they'd stayed in Europe.

Secondly, you seem to assume that any taking of life by the state is murder. I hold that the state has the legal and moral right to put to death someone who is too vicious to be allowed outside and who has done more damage to society than he could ever possibly hope to repay. I hold that it is wrong for the state to demand tax money from law-abiding people for the support of people too dangerous to be set at large.

I think that's where our irreconciable difference lies: You will never convince me that I have an obligation to keep someone alive who has caused wanton death and destruction, and I, apparently, will never convince you of the reverse.

I, at least, am willing to send such a person away to a remote island where the rest of us have no responsibility for him. You, evidently, even object to that.

 

[BPSCG]

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

I don't recall reading that, but, as a great president once said, "You can get a lot of work done if you don't sit around worrying about who's going to get the credit" so you can have the credit.

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.

No no no no no... You have to make clear to him that the social contract no longer applies to him. If he shows up on our shores again, he has the same rights as a rabid dog.

If he manages to live on his Elba, fine. If he even thrives there, good for him. If he gets eaten by a tyrannosaurus three minutes after his arrival, that's fine, too.

The point is, we don't care what happens to him any more; he's no longer part of our society. We won't go to the trouble, expense, and moral angst of killing him, but we also won't go to the trouble, expense, and moral angst of keeping him alive, either.

 

[BPSCG]

Interestingly, one of the most bizarre hangings was of an elephant(!). It had killed one of its trainers, I seem to recall, and so was condemned to hang.

I believe that happened at Coney Island (an amusement park in Brooklyn, New York, for you furriners). The elephant had apparently gone nuts one day, out of the blue.

Grotesque. Was this supposed to be some kind of deterrent to other elephants who might be harboring their own ideas of rampant death and destruction?

 

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by BPSCG
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.

What? I have no idea how you reached that conclusion from anything that I have said, at least not without a great deal of assumptions.

Well, you seem to be opposed to the death penalty no matter what. So if after three weeks' time in the joint, a convicted murderer had managed to strangle twenty-one of his colleagues and/or guards, you would still maintain we have an obligation to not put him to death?

I have a problem with providing them that much freedom and lack of supervision.

Freedom: I don't care about their freedom. They have all the freedom they want, as long as they do not reappear on our shores. A couple of patrol boats should make escape impossible. In any case, an island hundreds of miles from anywhere isn't going to have many escapees without outside help, which should be simple enough to interdict.

Lack of supervision: Supervise what? I don't care what they do on their little Elba

There is no consideration for tracking who arrives at and who leaves the exile island.

This is simple enough: Arrivals: Only condemned murderers. Departures: Nobody.

 

[BPSCG]

Wow. Tony and Zep agreeing with me (more or less) on the same day.

Proof positive that the End Days are nigh.

 

[Cleon]

I believe that happened at Coney Island (an amusement park in Brooklyn, New York, for you furriners). The elephant had apparently gone nuts one day, out of the blue.

Grotesque. Was this supposed to be some kind of deterrent to other elephants who might be harboring their own ideas of rampant death and destruction?

Something that weird couldn't come from New York...It had to be Tennessee.

 

[Upchurch]

No, I understand that perfectly well. My "why?" was directed at your statement that My "why?" was asking why the fact that it was agreed on by a large group of people makes it unjust.

Nothing is fundamentally changed by it being agreed upon by a large group of people. It is still the intentional and forcible taking, without consent, by an outside party of that which does not belong to them. If the outside party is 1,000,000 people instead of 1 person, how is that any different?

In other words, what is your theory as to why society does not have the right to kill someone who has caused grievous, irreparable damage and is too vicious to be let loose any more?

You're not paying attention. I never said that society doesn't have the right to kill someone. I'm saying that in doing so, that society is no better than the murderer they are punishing.

Why does society have an obligation feed him and shelter him, if it did not have that obligation before he committed his crimes?

Assuming a group of people consider themselves to be a moral society, they obtain that obligation through the act of removing the murderer from society. In essence, the state has come to the decision that this person cannot control himself, so the state takes on the responsibility of controling him.

So are you okay with the execution of the remaining 16 per cent?

Frankly, if they freely choose to give up their life, I don't have an issue with it. They are in a situation where no one is reasonably dependant upon them (perhaps emotionally, guess it depends on the specifics). Their life would not be forcibly taken from them, but freely given.

(emphasis mine) First off, I'll try to not take offense at your suggestion that what I want "are the benefits of a "might-makes-right" society where [I am} in the majority." My parents were a minority in such a society, and that's the only reason I was born in the U.S.; my ancestors would have been used for soap if they'd stayed in Europe.

My appolgies if I have offended, but you are arguing that an act that is immoral for an individual is moral for a large group. The only differentiating factor is the number of people involved in the act.

Secondly, you seem to assume that any taking of life by the state is murder.

Well, I believe that is one of the questions being addressed here (or, at least, that is what it has become). My position is that it is murder, or at the very least, unethical. Your position is that it is not.

I hold that the state has the legal and moral right to put to death someone who is too vicious to be allowed outside and who has done more damage to society than he could ever possibly hope to repay.[/b]

I agree that the state has the legal right. That much is a matter of fact. The moral right is highly questionable and you've not made a strong case for it. So far, your arguments amount to:

1. It costs too much (which is a financial, not a moral argument).
2. Revenge (which has a very weak moral basis).

I hold that it is wrong for the state to demand tax money from law-abiding people for the support of people too dangerous to be set at large.

...but you still want them to not be at large. There is a price for that.

I, at least, am willing to send such a person away to a remote island where the rest of us have no responsibility for him. You, evidently, even object to that.

I find that even more dangerous. In prison, at least, we know where the scumbag is and can control him. On a remote island, we can't even be sure he is still there at any given time. Plus, it would irk me on a visceral level that we'd even give him that much freedom after performing a visious crime.

 

[BPSCG]

Something that weird couldn't come from New York...It had to be Tennessee.

Had to do a little digging, but there was a Coney Island elephant. Topsy was electrocuted in 1903. He had the reputation for being bad-tempered; he'd killed three of his trainers, the last after the guy had fed him a lit cigarette (1903 Darwin Award Winner).

 

[Cleon]

Had to do a little digging, but there was a Coney Island elephant. Topsy was electrocuted in 1903. He had the reputation for being bad-tempered; he'd killed three of his trainers, the last after the guy had fed him a lit cigarette (1903 Darwin Award Winner).

Ye gods...Edison caught it on film (mpg here).

That's just wrong.

 

[Kerberos]

You're not paying attention. I never said that society doesn't have the right to kill someone. I'm saying that in doing so, that society is no better than the murderer they are punishing.

I'm against the death penalty, but this argument is positively bizarre. You're actually claiming that killing a murderer is morally equivalent to killing a totally innocent person!

 

[BPSCG]

Ye gods...Edison caught it on film.

Uh, thanks, but my life would be complete enough without my having to see this.

Ugh.

 

[Cleon]

Uh, thanks, but my life would be complete enough without my having to see this.

Ugh.

Yeah, that was a mistake on my part...

 

[Upchurch]

I'm against the death penalty, but this argument is positively bizarre. You're actually claiming that killing a murderer is morally equivalent to killing a totally innocent person!

I'm saying that killing anyone is morally wrong, except in self-defence. If you want to get into gradations of wrong, yes, killing an innocent is more wrong than killing a murderer, but it is still wrong.

The equivalency I'm drawing is not between the value of the respective objects of the act but the value of the subjects. I'm not saying that a murder has the right to live. I'm saying that no one has the moral right to forcibly and premeditatively take another's life, even if he is a scumbag and we all agree that he is a scumbag.

 

[BPSCG]

I'm not saying that a murder has the right to live. I'm saying that no one has the moral right to forcibly and premeditatively take another's life

The second sentence logically negates the first. If society does not have the right to take a murderer's life, then the murderer does indeed have the right to live.

If the murderer does not have the right to live - as you claim in your first sentence - then how did he lose that right?

 

[Jocko]

I'm saying that killing anyone is morally wrong, except in self-defence. If you want to get into gradations of wrong, yes, killing an innocent is more wrong than killing a murderer, but it is still wrong.

Please explain why you believe "self defense" only applies in the heat of the moment. It could be very reasonably argued that the death penalty IS self defense. That it's defense for society as a whole instead of an individual is at best an academic distinction, IMHO.

The equivalency I'm drawing is not between the value of the respective objects of the act but the value of the subjects. I'm not saying that a murder has the right to live. I'm saying that no one has the moral right to forcibly and premeditatively take another's life, even if he is a scumbag and we all agree that he is a scumbag.

So he has no right to live.
Society has no right to kill him.
Lovely, lovely detente ensues.

Care to pick a side and stick with it, hmmmm?

BTW, Upchurch, a critical flaw I see in your argument is that you clearly believe that the justness of the DP derives from from a certain minimum density of popular support. Has it occured to you that you may have that formula backwards?

It is not a matter of might making right, tyranny of the majority or whatever else you call it; it's a complete strawman. It's called paying for your crime. If you cannot repay in some like manner, then you ride the chair.

Some debts can't be repaid - but that doesn't mean they can't still foreclose on you.