• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

death penalty please

it seems like many people who are for the death penalty aren't supporting it out of valueing justice but out of a desire for revenge.

we're (i.e. the human species)capable of being better than that.
 
Tmy said:
Can you be against the DP for ethical reasons And be for doctor assisted sucide? For abortion???

Ethically, Im up for killing everybody!:p
Click to expand...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Ethically, I'm opposed to the death penalty. And I'm all for those who try to initiate deadly force against someone else, police or otherwise, being stopped by the most expedient means available...including deadly force....

Euthenasia? I can see room for some ethical applications. Abortion? I haven't got any argument for banning it.

So emotion aside, yeah, I don't see why you can't take ''inconsistent' positions on the various hot button issues in the name of ethics.
 
Still, what's wrong with revenge? Vengeance used to be valued--check out the Greeks and Romans. It wasn't til Christianity showed up, with its mellow "forgiveness" (until the afterlife) message that revenge fell into disrepute.

Personally, I think revenge can be both just and immensely satisfying, with benefits to one's mental health.


edited for misplaced apostrophe. Blush.
 
HarryKeogh said:
it seems like many people who are for the death penalty aren't supporting it out of valueing justice but out of a desire for revenge.

we're (i.e. the human species)capable of being better than that.
Click to expand...

Whats so bad about revenge.

Should we allow the ex hippee terrorist to go free because we only manage to capture them 25 years after the crime. Theyve lived model lives since the crime, so "rehabilitaion" isnt needed. Isnt it just revenge at that point?
 
TragicMonkey,
Oh, I'm for the death penalty philosophically, but against it in practice. Not being ironic--I have no ethical objections to execution for certain crimes. I just require complete certainty of guilt and total fairness in the judicial system first (no rich people getting off because they have money, etc). And as a realist, I don't think these prerequisites are going to be met.

I didn't mean to suggest an ethical objection to the death penalty was irrational or empty rhetoric, but merely that since I have an opposing ethical position that arguing from ethics wouldn't work.

Hence I have the satisfaction of a position that is simultaneously tough on criminals and enlightened and merciful.
Click to expand...

OK, now I understand you position. :)

I would say that ethical questions cannot be proven right or wrong.

So being ethically for or against DP are both acceptable.

However the reasons I'm against DP are :

When pronouncing a punishment, you have to stop somewhere. That is, to my view, before any kind of physical injuries, inhuman and degrading treatments, and, of course, being killed.

A punishment must be as compatible as possible with human rhigts, while remaining a punishment.

After all, Justice stands for human rights.

So I would rather live in a world that considers being imprisoned to be the ultimate form of punishment rather than in a world where you could be executed.

Elio.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Still, what's wrong with revenge? Vengeance used to be valued--check out the Greeks and Romans. It wasn't til Christianity showed up, with its mellow "forgiveness" (until the afterlife) message that revenge fell into disrepute.

Personally, I think revenge can be both just and immensely satisfying, with benefits to one's mental health.


edited for misplaced apostrophe. Blush.
Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence for your assertions? I find the one about Greece (I assume you mean Ancient Greece) particularly interesting. It's almost as though Solon never existed.
 
Whoracle said:
Revenge shouldn't be the goal of the legal system.
Click to expand...

Revenge = Justice.

Would you rather we let people off scott free just because their victims forgive them?
 
Tmy said:
Revenge = Justice.

Would you rather we let people off scott free just because their victims forgive them?
Click to expand...

There is a difference between 'revenge' and 'punishment'. Solon realised this, and he also realised which was more effective. Before his reforms to the Ancient Greek justice system (which was like the Hatfields and the McCoys, only with fifty more families and a lot less negotiation) little was getting done for all the people killing each other left, right and centre in the name of revenge. Solon transformed this into true justice. He fobade revenge killings, and people who did wrong were punished, to deter others who thought of commiting similar crimes.
 
Whoracle said:
Revenge shouldn't be the goal of the legal system.
Click to expand...

It's not. It's just a side benefit, in some cases. Remember the old saw (which is untrue) about the Puritans: they banned bear-baiting not because it was cruel to the bear, but because it brought pleasure to the spectators. To oppose the death penalty solely because some people are ghoulish and gleeful about isn't much of a position. There are much better reasons to oppose it.

Although in principle, I would like to say I find it appalling that people would rejoice in another's death....in practice, I can't say I wouldn't be pretty ghoulish myself if they caught and executed Osama bin Laden, or someone killed my mother and they fried the guy. But I don't have a particularly civilized nature.
 
Mr Manifesto said:
Do you have any evidence for your assertions? I find the one about Greece (I assume you mean Ancient Greece) particularly interesting. It's almost as though Solon never existed.
Click to expand...

I was thinking of their mythology--all that honor killing and avenging people. Their laws may have opposed it, but revenge didn't necessarily lose its cultural appeal. In fact, you might argue that the fact that they needed a law against it proves that it was a popular notion. (Although I'm not going to argue it, having forgotten everything I learned in college.) Unless it was all just blood and thunder talk on the way to the courts to bring a civil action, which seems quite possible.
 
TragicMonkey said:
I was thinking of their mythology--all that honor killing and avenging people. Their laws may have opposed it, but revenge didn't necessarily lose its cultural appeal. In fact, you might argue that the fact that they needed a law against it proves that it was a popular notion. (Although I'm not going to argue it, having forgotten everything I learned in college.) Unless it was all just blood and thunder talk on the way to the courts to bring a civil action, which seems quite possible.
Click to expand...

I don't think that there was anything romantic in Greek notions of honor killing. It's been a while since I slept through a Classics lecture, but I know the Iliad portrayed revenge has having tragic results (everyone gets killed and all in the name of someone's honor being slighted over some bint). I'm pretty sure we did a whole bunch of plays by Aeschylus, Oriestides and Euripides that had themes of revenge blinding the 'hero' leading to tragedy, but I'm prepared to be corrected on that since I slept pretty soundly through those lectures.
 
Mr Manifesto said:
I don't think that there was anything romantic in Greek notions of honor killing. It's been a while since I slept through a Classics lecture, but I know the Iliad portrayed revenge has having tragic results (everyone gets killed and all in the name of someone's honor being slighted over some bint). I'm pretty sure we did a whole bunch of plays by Aeschylus, Oriestides and Euripides that had themes of revenge blinding the 'hero' leading to tragedy, but I'm prepared to be corrected on that since I slept pretty soundly through those lectures.
Click to expand...

That's the point of Greek tragedy--doing the right thing even when it leads to total disaster. The hero knows what will happen, but is obligated to carry it out anyway. And suffers immensely (and usually so does the wife, the kids, the friends, and sometimes a city or two). Hence the tragedy--aware of being in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation, the hero accepts it and goes on, thus proving himself to be beautifully noble, etc.

It's an extreme representation of life--we can't control much in life, and eventually everyone winds up dead. It's how we act, with this knowledge, that determines the kind of people we are.

Mind you, Greek lit. at my school was taught by the philosophy professor who specialized in Nietzsche, so this might be a more modern interpretation than is properly the case.
 
Does anything clear the room faster than discussing Greek tragedy?

I notice the Greeks had the death penalty.
 
Tmy said:
Not quite. Guards and other inmates are still in danger. The muderderer has few incentives to not harm the people he comes in contact with. Ever see these shows about the dangerous guys in supermax prisons.
Click to expand...

The Pelican Bay documentary is chilling in its portrayal of people so intent on hurting someone, that when all possible victims are removed (guards, staff, other inmates, furniture, bedding, etc) they start mutilating themselves.

But, not having good options shouldn't prevent us from trying to minimize the problems with the options we do employ.
 

It's not. It's just a side benefit, in some cases. Remember the old saw (which is untrue) about the Puritans: they banned bear-baiting not because it was cruel to the bear, but because it brought pleasure to the spectators. To oppose the death penalty solely because some people are ghoulish and gleeful about isn't much of a position. There are much better reasons to oppose it.


Who said it was the only reason I oppose the death penalty. It's just that the death penalty isn't about punishment, it's about revenge, and many supporters of it will even admit this. The government isn't here to get a pound of flesh for you. Philosophically, I don't mind the death penalty. I don't lose any sleep when a serial killer is put to death. I'm not about to join a protest against it. I just think the death penalty has far too many negatives and almost if any positves for society on the whole.
 
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned elsewhere in the thread, but the average time between the act of murder and the actual execution in the US is close to 20 years. (According to statistics from California, the average time between conviction and execution is 16 years.) Shift the execution data 20 years backwards and the curves line up nicely -- more murders result in a greater number of death penalties and vice versa, as one would expect.
 
Hey, where'd NTW go? He pulls the pin on this little thread grenade, tosses it in our midst, then runs off.
 
Tmy said:
Your assuming those people wouldve recived the DP. If they get out of jail after a murder conviction then they werent convicted of a henious crime that wouldve even called for the DP.
Click to expand...
Maybe. Or maybe they were convicted in a state that doesn't have it in the first place.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Oh, I'm for the death penalty philosophically, but against it in practice. Not being ironic--I have no ethical objections to execution for certain crimes. I just require complete certainty of guilt
Click to expand...
That's about whee I am with it. If I were on a jury, I might vote to convict someone of murder based on the absence of a reasonable doubt about his guilt. But I don't believe I could vote to have him executed unless I was sure of his guilt beyond ANY doubt.
and total fairness in the judicial system first (no rich people getting off because they have money, etc). And as a realist, I don't think these prerequisites are going to be met.
Click to expand...
See, now you're getting into the "total fairness" trap again. No laws are totally fair, and neither is the application of those laws; ask anyone who's ever gotten a speeding ticket while just going with the flow of traffic. So just because Richard Speck, a white guy, died happy in prison after murdering half a dozen nursing students in Chicago, no black guy should ever be executed? If a rich O.J. Simpson wasn't punished for murdering his wife when even the stones in the street know he did it, Mark Hacking shouldn't be punished either? Terry Nichols was an accomplice to the murders of 168 people and escaped the death penalty today. Does that mean anyone who helps kill fewer than 168 people should also get life without parole? Perfect justice is a Holy Grail that you'll never see. That doesn't mean you should stop administering it.
Hence I have the satisfaction of a position that is simultaneously tough on criminals and enlightened and merciful.
Click to expand...
Here's my enlightened, merciful solution that gets back to my "rupturing the social contract" argument earlier. You take the vicious killers and exile them (there's gotta be a few islands somewhere...). You tell them that we (society) wash our hands of them - they are on their own, whether they live or die is of no concern to us, because they have irredeemably ruptured the social contract. We will neither help them survive nor attempt any harm to them, since we have no further obligation to them. As long as they don't come back. If they come back, they're executed. Not for revenge, but just because we have the right to protect ourselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom