Death Penalty: Pt XXIV

[theprestige]

Yes there is. It violates the principle that people shouldn't kill other people.

I'm not sure that makes sense. Putting people in prison violates the principle that people shouldn't take away other people's freedom. Fining people violates the principle that people shouldn't take away other people's stuff.

Once you start violating principles, it's hard to hold up principle as a defense.

Dave

Thanks for this. I didn't know who I was replying to.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I'm not sure that makes sense. Putting people in prison violates the principle that people shouldn't take away other people's freedom. Fining people violates the principle that people shouldn't take away other people's stuff.

Agreed; those things therefore also have things wrong with them in principle. In practice they may be better than the alternatives, but it's false to say that in principle there's nothing wrong with them.

Since that was the only point I was countering, I won't bother with the irrelevant parts of your post.

Dave

 

[fagin]

Avoiding the actual moral dilemma, innocent people get convicted. And executed.

 

[theprestige]

Avoiding the actual moral dilemma, innocent people get convicted. And executed.

I'm not sure the moral dilemma can be avoided, though. Incarceration has the same problem. Say you believe that some period of incarceration is in some sense "just". But no system of justice is perfect. If you start incarcerating people in the name of justice, you must accept that some people will be unjustly incarcerated. In general, societies deal with this problem by trying to make their justice system as accurate as possible, while accepting that in order to get justice for most, there will be injustice for a few. But the moral dilemma is not avoided. It must be confronted head on.

The morality of dispensing justice must be weighed against the morality of not dispensing justice, and a moral balance must be sought. That is every bit as true for incarceration as for execution. The moral dilemma cannot, and should not, be avoided.

 

[Dave Rogers]

If you start incarcerating people in the name of justice, you must accept that some people will be unjustly incarcerated. In general, societies deal with this problem by trying to make their justice system as accurate as possible, while accepting that in order to get justice for most, there will be injustice for a few.

But that's an incomplete summary; societies also deal with this by compensating those who turn out to have been unjustly imprisoned when the injustice is revealed. How does society recompense those who have been unjustly executed?

Dave

 

[theprestige]

But that's an incomplete summary; societies also deal with this by compensating those who turn out to have been unjustly imprisoned when the injustice is revealed. How does society recompense those who have been unjustly executed?

Don't lie to yourself: No amount of money can replace twenty years of your life.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Don't lie to yourself: No amount of money can replace twenty years of your life.

Agreed, but at least some partial recompense is possible. Not so with execution.

And I'd take exception to another of your statements. Opposition to the death penalty has nothing to do with avoiding the moral dilemma of whether or not to dispense justice. It is the position that execution is not a morally acceptable part of the dispensation of justice. It is a moral choice, not the avoidance of one.

Dave

 

[Vixen]

I'm in favor of the death penalty but only for one kind of crimes: corruption in government office. Because those are betrayals of the entire nation, whereas mere murder only victimizes the murdered. Executing corrupt officials would prevent them from gaining by their crimes, as well as discourage others. And such criminals are less likely to be poor and underprivileged to begin with, so no fears there about inequality. These are people who are already at the top and decide that's not enough, they want more, and will betray the public to get it. Why do they get a slap on the wrist, a short stay in country club prison, then a cushy retirement possibly with more offices granted by political cronies? Corruption is a poison, a cancer on government. The damage it does deserves the ultimate punishment. Root it out, stop the spread, permanently.

Murder can be justified, depending on the circumstances. Betraying the public by abuse of office for gain cannot.

A major concept of justice is one of proportionality.

 

[jimbob]

Don't lie to yourself: No amount of money can replace twenty years of your life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy#Perfect_solution_fallacy

Agreed, but at least some partial recompense is possible. Not so with execution.

And I'd take exception to another of your statements. Opposition to the death penalty has nothing to do with avoiding the moral dilemma of whether or not to dispense justice. It is the position that execution is not a morally acceptable part of the dispensation of justice. It is a moral choice, not the avoidance of one.

Dave

Indeed. "Some harm is inevitable if we mistakenly imprison an innocent person. Some harm is inevitable if we mistakenly execute an innocent person. So why care about the difference?"

 

[jimbob]

But that's an incomplete summary; societies also deal with this by compensating those who turn out to have been unjustly imprisoned when the injustice is revealed. How does society recompense those who have been unjustly executed?

Dave

In some parts of the US, the answer seems to be to avoid asking questions that might demonstrate the innocence, or if evidence comes up after all appeals have failed, to disallow it.

And like many of ponderingturtle's posts, that is not much, if any, of an exaggeration.

 

[TragicMonkey]

A major concept of justice is one of proportionality.

I agree. That's why betraying three hundred million people should carry a stiffer punishment than killing one person.

 

[ddt]

I agree. That's why betraying three hundred million people should carry a stiffer punishment than killing one person.

I fully agree with your reasoning here, though I'm still opposed to the death penalty, out of principle, for such crimes.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I fully agree with your reasoning here, though I'm still opposed to the death penalty, out of principle, for such crimes.

Perhaps not the death penalty then. How about a punishment of making a one centimeter cut on the convicted? Per citizen victim. So a corrupt official on the federal level wouldn't get the death penalty, they'd just get what, 345 million cuts? Or, and this is key, a single cut 345 million cm long. Their choice!

 

[The Atheist]

I'm in favor of the death penalty but only for one kind of crimes: corruption in government office.

Now, there's one I could possibly get behind!

Avoiding the actual moral dilemma, innocent people get convicted. And executed.

Blackstone's Formulation.

 

[Nessie]

I think the only way there should be a death penalty, is if there is a corresponding law which means a wrongful conviction means the ending of the life of those who investigated and convicted the innocent person as such is also considered murder.

Judges, juries, police investigators, knowing if they get it wrong and an innocent is executed, means they have murdered someone and are now facing execution themselves will either -

make sure the investigation is done to the nth degree and all evidence, particularly exculpatory evidence, is taken into consideration.

decide life imprison at least means miscarriages of justice can be compensated for.

 

[Vixen]

Now, there's one I could possibly get behind!



Blackstone's Formulation.

But there'd be no politician left!

 

[jimbob]

Cheap shot that is untrue, Vixen.

Such cynicism is partly why we do end up with corrupt officials in elected office - because "they're all at it"

 

[Vixen]

Cheap shot that is untrue, Vixen.

Such cynicism is partly why we do end up with corrupt officials in elected office - because "they're all at it"

Name me one. As an example, in my student days, the way to win an NUS election, was to promise to bring down the price of beer at the student union bar.

It never happened.

 

[Darat]

Name me one. As an example, in my student days, the way to win an NUS election, was to promise to bring down the price of beer at the student union bar.

It never happened.

That is not an example of corruption.

 

[jimbob]

Name me one. As an example, in my student days, the way to win an NUS election, was to promise to bring down the price of beer at the student union bar.

It never happened.

OK,

I have no reason to believe that Tony Benn was corrupt.

I have no reason to believe that Ann Widdicombe or Martin Bell were corrupt MPs


I have no reason to believe that Caroline Lucas is corrupt.


Obviously I don't agree with all their views, but that is a different question