Control Your Weeping

[RandFan]

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

That's just wrong.

Yes but it proved that alternating current is dangerous which WAS Edison's motivation for the whole thing in the first place. Sorry Edison, you proved your point but we live with AC today.

 

[Upchurch]

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.

Not in the case of self-defence, accident, sickness, or old age. (okay, that first one is oddly worded. Being the recipent of another's self-defence?)

My point is that I am not concerned with the rights of a murderer. He lost any claim to rights morally when he took the life of another. (his legal rights are a different issue.) What I am concerned with is that, if we are to be a moral society, we must strive to act in a moral manner at all times. If we're not concerned with that, then there really is no issue.

Individuals and society absolutely have the moral right to protect themselves from an immediate threat, but a man that is sufficently detained is not a threat, immedate or otherwise.

 

[richardm]

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.

1868 was the last public execution in England. They certainly were spectacles, and very popular with tourists. On occasions special trains were laid on. This was the root of them moving indoors, I believe: the crowds treated them like football matches today. The purpose of public execution was to act as a lesson to miscreants, not to be a rowdy entertainment.

I daresay that if public executions were reintroduced today there'd be good crowds again, for the first few at least.

 

[Upchurch]

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.

Because in the heat of the moment, the murderer still has the opportunity to forcibly take that which is not his to take. Once that opprotunity is gone, it is no longer defence.

How does sufficient incarceration fail to protect society?

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.

Possibly, but that hasn't really been the argument presented so far.

Anyway, how does the murder's death compensate the victims for their own deaths? It does not bring them back to life. It does not monitarily compensate them, or their loved ones, for the pain and suffering.

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

Honestly, what you are discribing isn't paying for a crime in the sense that the murderer is doing something to compensate the victims. This is revenge by the victims on the murderer.

 

[RandFan]

Honestly, what you are discribing isn't paying for a crime in the sense that the murderer is doing something to compensate the victims. This is revenge by the victims on the murderer.

Your insistance that it is revenge is just an opinion. And by your logic all punishment is revenge.

 

[Beerina]

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?

That elephant picture looks like it could be fake. I don't think an elephant's neck structures (flesh and bone) could support that much weight without tearing.

In any case, I doubt some moron was thinking it would be a deterrent, or some kind of psycho-revenge, but rather "Hey! Since we've gotta kill it anyway..."

 

[Upchurch]

And by your logic all punishment is revenge.

How so?

 

[Jocko]

Because in the heat of the moment, the murderer still has the opportunity to forcibly take that which is not his to take. Once that opprotunity is gone, it is no longer defence.

That's your opinion. Defense can be a little more proactive than you're painting, but that's neither here nor there.

How does sufficient incarceration fail to protect society?

Because killers kill in prison - the "second" society as it has been called here. Plus there are escapes. You place an awful lot of faith in the prison system as if were as reliable as gravity. It isn't.

Possibly, but that hasn't really been the argument presented so far.

Yes, it is, unless you didn't have this in mind when you wrote:

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.

To me, that sounds like painting popularity as a figleaf of integrity, completely ignoring the possibility that it's popular because it already HAS integrity.

Anyway, how does the murder's death compensate the victims for their own deaths? It does not bring them back to life. It does not monitarily compensate them, or their loved ones, for the pain and suffering.

Ah, and forcing the victim's friends/family/etc. to contribute to the beast's upkeep is fair? At this point, I really want to hear a reason from you to explain why you think they are entitled to live at public expense, when they have already cost the public so much.

Honestly, what you are discribing isn't paying for a crime in the sense that the murderer is doing something to compensate the victims. This is revenge by the victims on the murderer.

This is meaningless unless you can support why such revenge is wrong. Like many, you take this as dogma. Yet it's a rare thing for a relative or friend of a murder victim to speak out against an execution... I prefer to rely on the opinions of people who are actually involved in the issue. If they want him dead, I will not argue with them.

 

[Jocko]

How so?

In your own words:

It does not monitarily compensate them, or their loved ones, for the pain and suffering.

Now, that was about the DP in particular, but how is that different than for robbery? Rape? Fraud? Maybe there's restitution, maybe there's a civil suit. But if that's all there is to it, why have prison at all? The victim doesn't benefit directly from a jailed felon.

And again, I'd like to know why the human predispostion to revenge is inherently invalid.

 

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by BPSCG
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.

My point is that I am not concerned with the rights of a murderer. He lost any claim to rights morally when he took the life of another.

Okay, so when society executes him, it is not violating his rights, since he has lost those rights, both morally (as you state) and legally.

What I am concerned with is that, if we are to be a moral society, we must strive to act in a moral manner at all times.

But you have yet to persuade me that executing a vicious criminal is immoral. I submit that forcing honest, hardworking, (dare I say God-fearing on this web site?) taxpayers to yield up what they have worked for to keep a murderer alive is immoral. As Jocko points out, forcing a taxpayer to contribute to the upkeep of someone who has murderered his loved one is a moral abomination.

 

[Upchurch]

That's your opinion. Defense can be a little more proactive than you're painting, but that's neither here nor there.

Because killers kill in prison - the "second" society as it has been called here. Plus there are escapes. You place an awful lot of faith in the prison system as if were as reliable as gravity. It isn't.

Actually, I did grant that the prison system wasn't perfect (page 2, I think), but as I said then, that is a practical failing of the prison system and not a morality question. Plus, I did say "sufficent incarceration", by which I meant incarceration sufficent to provent the murderer's opportunity for further injury to others. (solitary confinement, if need be.)

Possibly, but that hasn't really been the argument presented so far.

Yes, it is, unless you didn't have this in mind when you wrote:

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.

Actually, I was referring to your comment that:

It's called paying for your crime. If you cannot repay in some like manner, then you ride the chair.

when I said that hadn't been the argument presented so far by BPSCG. And actually, I'd have to check on that as he might have mentioned something to that effect earlier, but "paying for your crime" certainly hasn't been the main thrust of his argument.

To me, that sounds like painting popularity as a figleaf of integrity, completely ignoring the possibility that it's popular because it already HAS integrity.

But my point has been that popularity is completely irrelevent to the morality of the action and that whether or not it has popular support does not give an action any more or less moral support.

Ah, and forcing the victim's friends/family/etc. to contribute to the beast's upkeep is fair? At this point, I really want to hear a reason from you to explain why you think they are entitled to live at public expense, when they have already cost the public so much.

I have explained this many times now. This isn't a question of how horrible a murderer is or that maybe he doesn't deserve to live. That's being taken as granted.

My point, in very simple terms, is that if we consider forcibly killing another to be immoral then we cannot focribly kill someone without being, ourselves, immoral. If you do not consider forcibly killing another to be immoral, then I question your moral underpinnings, but that is about as far as it can go.

No one ever said that being moral was fair, at least I never have. I certainly have never said that murderers are entitled to anything. I'm merely saying that a moral society does not perform those actions that it condemns in individuals.

Incidently, I've yet to get an answer to my question as to how murder by an indvidual is morally different from murder by a group of people.

This is meaningless unless you can support why such revenge is wrong.

You want to know why such revenge is morally wrong. Why killing is not an ethical response to killing.

I honestly don't know how to begin to give you the grounding to start with this. This should have been one of your first lessons in grade school when some kid came up to you on the play ground and pushed you down.

Let's start with some real basic questions: Is it ethical for you to take toy that is not yours? In self-interst alone, I would hope you say "no" as you would not want open yourself up to the possibility that it would be ethical for a toy to be taken from you.

If someone were to take a toy of one of your friends, is it now ethical for you to take one of their toys? Again, I would hope that you would say "no" because just because someone taking an action it does not mean that the action is suddenly okay.

Now, how does this change if that "toy" is that person's life?

This is a grossly overly simplified example because it would take a book's worth of materials (at least) to flesh this out fully. Revenge is wrong because it compounds a wrong with another wrong. And, to use the cliche, two wrongs do not make a right. (Although, oddly, three lefts do make a right.)

Yet it's a rare thing for a relative or friend of a murder victim to speak out against an execution... I prefer to rely on the opinions of people who are actually involved in the issue. If they want him dead, I will not argue with them.

The emotional response of a victim (or their family) is no basis for a system of judging right and wrong. I imagine that is why they don't let the victim's family members sit on the jury in a trial.

Orignally posted by BPSCG
Okay, so when society executes him, it is not violating his rights, since he has lost those rights, both morally (as you state) and legally.

I don't believe the murderer's rights are the issue, but yes, I don't believe it is violating his rights.

But you have yet to persuade me that executing a vicious criminal is immoral.

Perhaps if you could explain how to me how a group of people killing an individual is different from an individual killing an individual, I might be able to understand why you are having difficulty with this.

I submit that forcing honest, hardworking, (dare I say God-fearing on this web site?) taxpayers to yield up what they have worked for to keep a murderer alive is immoral. As Jocko points out, forcing a taxpayer to contribute to the upkeep of someone who has murderered his loved one is a moral abomination.

Is it immoral, or just unfair? Speaking of fair, do you consider it moral to force honest, hardworking, even God-fearing, taxpayer to yield up what they have worked for to aid in killing a human being, however dispicable he may be? Do the needs of the victim's family members outweigh the moral integrety of the rest of the society?

 

[BPSCG]

Actually, I was referring to your comment that:when I said that hadn't been the argument presented so far by BPSCG. And actually, I'd have to check on that as he might have mentioned something to that effect earlier, but "paying for your crime" certainly hasn't been the main thrust of his argument.

Actually, it's central to my argument, and I've made that point at least twice now:

When he's done someone a harm for which no adequate recompense can be made.

You don't execute someone for robbing a liquor store, because we can lock him up as punishment and require him to make restitution. When he has done that, justice has been served, and the books are squared, hence we say he has "paid his debt to society."

How does a murderer square the books? Answer: He can't. He has irreparably broken the social contract.

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.

Back to you.

Perhaps if you could explain how to me how a group of people killing an individual is different from an individual killing an individual, I might be able to understand why you are having difficulty with this.

For starts, as someone else said here, there's a vast moral gulf between the guy who kills for unacceptable reasons (e.g. cash from a liquor store) and someone who kills for acceptable ones (e.g. self-defense).

I submit that killing someone who has ruptured the social contract so badly that he can not even theoretically repay those he has damaged is not immoral. If - as you yourself acknowledge - he does not have the right to live any more, then how is it immoral to take from him that which he no longer has any right?

 

[RandFan]

How so?

How not so?

You don't tell us how or why the death penalty is in fact revenge. I can only surmize that to you punishment = revenge.

 

[Roadtoad]

Truth to tell, this is really the only acceptable reason for a Death Penalty that I can see. As BPSCG posted:

When he's done someone a harm for which no adequate recompense can be made.

You don't execute someone for robbing a liquor store, because we can lock him up as punishment and require him to make restitution. When he has done that, justice has been served, and the books are squared, hence we say he has "paid his debt to society."

How does a murderer square the books? Answer: He can't. He has irreparably broken the social contract.

To put it another way, how does Richard Allen Davis "square the books?" How could Robert Alton Harris "pay his debt"? One murders Polly Klaas, the other a couple of kids who just wanted to do a little gold panning. (The thing that sunk it for me with Harris was that the police caught him in the kids' car, eating hamburgers from Burger King he paid for with the kids' money, laughing about what he'd done.)

I'm supposed to feel sorry for a sick son of a bitch like Robert Alton Harris, because his mommy had too much to drink? Sorry, I know too many people who have managed to build good lives in spite of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. At some point, you have to say, "If you need help, we can help you, but you have to accept responsibility for your life."

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

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

A system which means that you have rights unless and until your parliament decides you don't have them any more, which makes it hard to see what point these rights served in the first place.

Which do you believe should take precedence?

As I said earlier, you cannot at this time base a workable system of government on inalienable rights to life, liberty and so forth. So while I have no opinion on which should take precedence in any sense other than that of practicality, in terms of practicality if you have such rights you have to be able to suspend them.

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.

Ever needed welfare?

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.

I am citing them to show that your position is barbaric even by the standards of the British Empire in at least one very important respect.

You are citing them to try to argue that because your position is less barbaric in other respects than Empire practise that the aspect I brought up doesn't matter.

My argument is a mildly relevant bit of historical data, yours is a straightforward argumentative fallacy. I'm not forbidding you to engage in such intellectual blunders, but I will probably point them out if you make them.

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.

It might be better not to air such speculations if you have no basis for them. It will not do you much good.

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?

You are dodging the question.

You still have to show that the activities we are discussing are a waste of money and an abuse of the process. You can't just assume these things to be true.

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.

Not everyone who opposes every execution does so because we could be executing an innocent man, and the cause of abolishing the death penalty might be advanced by fighting every capital punishment case to the full extent of the law.

 

[Jocko]

A system which means that you have rights unless and until your parliament decides you don't have them any more, which makes it hard to see what point these rights served in the first place.

Which system are you referring to? Just refer to any Claus-Shane-a-thon for the requisite info on what determines constitutional rights in America, where the pertinent cases occurred. It's not quite the fast-and-loose capricious process you seem to assume it is.

As I said earlier, you cannot at this time base a workable system of government on inalienable rights to life, liberty and so forth. So while I have no opinion on which should take precedence in any sense other than that of practicality, in terms of practicality if you have such rights you have to be able to suspend them.

For every right, delineated or not, there exists a corresponding responsibility to not infringe on same.

Let me repeat that, because that's a highly unpopular but completely true fun fact: each right carries a responsibility. The social contract can be broken, and its terms nullified through due process. Check the bill of rights for clarification.

What you seem to think L,L & POH means is anarchy. Not so.

Ever needed welfare?

Ever been forced to give a bum a quarter at gunpoint? Stop dodging the issue- charity is, by definition, a choice. That is not the way death row inmates are supported, for the simple reason that no one would choose to fund them.

BTW, welfare benefits run out long before a con's appeal process, so if you insist on a pragmatic approach, that's bunk as well.

I am citing them to show that your position is barbaric even by the standards of the British Empire in at least one very important respect.

And doing a bang up job at it so far.

Not everyone who opposes every execution does so because we could be executing an innocent man, and the cause of abolishing the death penalty might be advanced by fighting every capital punishment case to the full extent of the law.

And this is different from the current system... how?