Death Penalty...Yes, No or Undecided?

[shanek]

I love ya shane. Perhaps but it would not change the fact that ecomonic vs. safety decisions would have to be made at some point and to some degree.

Those kind of decisions are made by everyone, every day. I'm not arguing that. I'm just arguing that the government "must" do these things.

 

[Sushi]

Wow! I don't want to derail the thread. I did want to respond however and say that while I am no fan of Ashcroft, a guy that is a bit of boob and off his rocker, but your statement left me not interested in anything else in your post. I don't at all understand such a statement. I find it presumptuous and assuming in a way that is more fitting of Uri Geller and Sylvia Brown. I think you drink the Kool-Aid as it relates to left wing propaganda. You don't have to like the guy or agree with anything he ever did or said to be a skeptic but I think it takes a blind allegiance to ones ideological peers to take such a position.

You don't like people like John Ashcroft? I don't either. But then I don't like people like you who would laugh at the death of another human being who acted in way he believed moral and in the best interest of the country, however over zealous (yes there is a lot to criticize there).

Hey, it's a free world.

This has nothing to do with skepticism. This is a moral position (as is all politics, as it relates to what we should do that has no real connection to fact). Too many of the people here try to make a religion of "skepticism" and try to add moral and political positions to the definition of skepticism...

I really don't care if the guy thinks he was doing things for the greater good. He is an enemy regardless, and an enemy of anyone who wants anything remotely resembling a free world. Certainly (and I apologize to invoke Nazis...) Hitler thought what he was doing was right and just. Does Hitler get a free pass on this? Do leftists get a free pass when passing hate-speech laws because they think they are doing it for the greater good? Police who arrest people just for taking substances that aren't state-approved?

By doing what he did, he lowered the quality of life of others in an unjust way. I have no problems with refusal to give-- I have a problem with actively taking, and Ashcroft was quite an "active" man. Are you aware that Ashcroft started what is now currently going on-- the DoJ is getting poised to strike the adult entertainment industry under obscenity charges?

If it's fair, I would also celebrate the deaths of cons like Sylvia Browne and Uri Geller. I know what it makes me sound like, but I don't care-- I have rejected this idea that a human life has fundamental worth. It doesn't-- it is assigned by the perceiver. And I see far, far more good with their deaths than with their continued living. I want to live in the best world possible for me, and those I like and admire. These people take me FURTHER instead of closer away from that.

I know it's strange, as well, that my arguments sound like something akin to what a fascist would say. But I am a big fan of individual liberty, even when it is not pragmatic or economical. And while I do admire good intent (I even have some grudging respect for socialists some of the time) that does not change the ultimate effect it has on my life.

 

[crimresearch]

Please note that when I first posited the question I did point out that there seemed to me to be a difference and it was in part due to the deliberateness of the act.

In any event.

Someone who murders another person is a potential risk to others. It has been argued that the death penalty would keep that person from murdering again. I concede your point that one death is unintended and the other intended.

Is that really important? Why?

If we wait until we have something that is proof against unintended consequences (such as life sentence holders stlll killing people), we will be waiting quite a while, I'm afraid.

I couched my original post on the OP in terms of 'the CJ system we have', not the one we wish we had.

And within its flawed constraints (which would include innocent deaths from a variety of causes), I find the ability to choose or not choose to throw the switch to be significant precisely because it *is* intentional....therefor we can do something about it.

Taking me back to the point that if we can save innocent death row inmates by stopping execdutions, we should.

 

[RandFan]

This has nothing to do with skepticism. This is a moral position (as is all politics, as it relates to what we should do that has no real connection to fact). Too many of the people here try to make a religion of "skepticism" and try to add moral and political positions to the definition of skepticism...

It has everything to do with skepticism. We should never abandon critical thinking for any reason. Refusing to do so makes us willfuly blind. Simply accepting assertions because it SOUNDS good is wrong. It doesn't mater if it is politics or science. We must not abandon objectivity.

I really don't care if the guy thinks he was doing things for the greater good. He is an enemy regardless, and an enemy of anyone who wants anything remotely resembling a free world.

This is simply rhetoric and you have not substantiated this belief. Again, you are drinking the Kool-Aid of the left.

Certainly (and I apologize to invoke Nazis...)

I had no doubt that you would.

Hitler thought what he was doing was right and just. Does Hitler get a free pass on this?

Hitler was systematically murdering an entire race of people. Hitler invaded sovereign nations and killed many innocent people without provocation. While it is ok to show that intentions are not sufficient to justify actions you have not shown that Ashcroft's actions justify such a comparison.

Do leftists get a free pass when passing hate-speech laws because they think they are doing it for the greater good? Police who arrest people just for taking substances that aren't state-approved?

Of course not, and PLEASE pay close attention to the difference. I DON'T demonize them or compare them to Hitler.

Did you catch the distinction?

By doing what he did, he lowered the quality of life of others in an unjust way.

You have not established this but instead assume that we all agree. Again, this is not objective and posting on a skeptics site demands better.

I have no problems with refusal to give-- I have a problem with actively taking, and Ashcroft was quite an "active" man. Are you aware that Ashcroft started what is now currently going on-- the DoJ is getting poised to strike the adult entertainment industry under obscenity charges?

I would gladly fight them. I hardly see such actions as reason to demonize them.

If it's fair, I would also celebrate the deaths of cons like Sylvia Browne and Uri Geller. I know what it makes me sound like, but I don't care-- I have rejected this idea that a human life has fundamental worth. It doesn't-- it is assigned by the perceiver. And I see far, far more good with their deaths than with their continued living. I want to live in the best world possible for me, and those I like and admire. These people take me FURTHER instead of closer away from that.

I would not celebrate their deaths. I don't see your point.

In any event, you and I agree that what these individuals have done is demonstrably reprehensible. Further their actions had nothing to do with law enforcement and the need to protect an entire nation. These individuals did not have difficult choices but instead chose to exploit people because of greed. This is a very poor comparison.

I know it's strange, as well, that my arguments sound like something akin to what a fascist would say. But I am a big fan of individual liberty, even when it is not pragmatic or economical. And while I do admire good intent (I even have some grudging respect for socialists some of the time) that does not change the ultimate effect it has on my life.

I would put the sins of Aschroft in the same boat as Roosevelt who took away the civil rights of many Japanese. Both men did wrong. I cannot excuse either. However I can understand the decisions and thought processes behind the actions of both. I am deeply disappointed but I don't see malice or ill will. I see a difficult problem without simple solutions.

Had I been alive during Roosevelt's time I would not have celebrated his death. I would have been deeply disappointed that he imprisoned Japanese Americans.

I simply see no basis whatsoever for your attempts to demonize Ashcroft. The left has been churning out hate and propaganda against him from the moment he took office. You have shown no willingness to question that propaganda. You simply accept it ALL as true and you have never even heard Ashcrofts rebuttal to all of the charges, have you?

 

[RandFan]

And within its flawed constraints (which would include innocent deaths from a variety of causes), I find the ability to choose or not choose to throw the switch to be significant precisely because it *is* intentional....therefor we can do something about it.

I understand your point. And while it troubles me I'm afraid that the fact that it is intentional seems at best to me specious. I'll think about it some more. I wish there was some logical reason beyond the fact that it is intentional. Bear in mind we are not trying to intentionally kill innocent people. Innocent people die as an unintended consequence.

Taking me back to the point that if we can save innocent death row inmates by stopping execdutions, we should.

Why? Sorry, you don't really have to answer that. It bothers me that innocent people die as an unintentional consequence of putting to death murderers. I do respect your opinion though and I'm certainly one of those on the fence.

Thanks,

RandFan

 

[Suddenly]

As you yourself said above, deaths while driving only happen because of human error. Deaths by execution are really unavoidable.

I'm not meaning all deaths... only deaths of innocents. Both only occur due to error.

That perhaps even the gulity should not be executed is a different argument altogether...

What benefits? What benefit can there possibly be to killing someone who doesn't pose an immediate threat?

That's the debate. Claus's tandrum notwithstanding, there is some evidence that it deters other crimes (although I suspect encourages as many crimes as it deters), and also some people pose a threat no matter where they are.

There are a million arguments.... At present in the U.S. it seems the benefit is quite small, but that is just my opinion...

We are talking about the government killing people. Not the government trying to build a building and having a cinder block fall on somebody's head.

Right... but they are killing people found to be guilty via due process. Like I said, that the guilty should not be executed is a different argument... I am just addressing the argument against the DP that centers on the killing of innocents.

Looking at it that way, an innocent getting caught up us exactly the same as someone catching a block in the noggin.... The guilty being killed is just another brick in the wall....

 

[crimresearch]

I understand your point. And while it troubles me I'm afraid that the fact that it is intentional seems at best to me specious. I'll think about it some more. I wish there was some logical reason beyond the fact that it is intentional. Bear in mind we are not trying to intentionally kill innocent people. Innocent people die as an unintended consequence.

Why? Sorry, you don't really have to answer that. It bothers me that innocent people die as an unintentional consequence of putting to death murderers. I do respect your opinion though and I'm certainly one of those on the fence.

Thanks,

RandFan

Thank you,

For me it is an incremental decision...no single factor is make or break, but the total set of flaws with the current death penalty crosses the line.

Come up with a fool proof trial system, figure out a way to make it proportional, and bring it within the parameters of effective punishment by being swift and certain, and I may change my mind.

 

[RandFan]

Thank you,

For me it is an incremental decision...no single factor is make or break, but the total set of flaws with the current death penalty crosses the line.

That I can get my head around.

Come up with a fool proof trial system, figure out a way to make it proportional, and bring it within the parameters of effective punishment by being swift and certain, and I may change my mind.

 

[shanek]

I'm not meaning all deaths... only deaths of innocents. Both only occur due to error.

Sorry, but if you strap someone to a table and pump deadly fluids into his veins all the while saying, "Gee, I hope he isn't innocent," that isn't an "error." There's just a world of difference between that and accidentally missing the brake.

That perhaps even the gulity should not be executed is a different argument altogether...

Sure, but I was reacting to your argument as given.

That's the debate. Claus's tandrum notwithstanding,

I have Claus on ignore, so I (perhaps mercifully) missed this.

there is some evidence that it deters other crimes (although I suspect encourages as many crimes as it deters),

I couldn't tell you either way. I don't imagine the death penalty being any real kind of deterrent, but on the other hand I'm at a loss to see how it could actually encourage crime.

Right... but they are killing people found to be guilty via due process.

Yeah, but like others have said, it's not undoable. We don't allow the government to chop off body parts for much the same reason. Or would you advocate castration for rapists?

 

[H3LL]

As my brother was murdered using the imaginative method of glass etching acid I find it particularly galling that the convicted perp' should now be out and about enjoying himself.

My family is punished for life by the loss.

I don't wish the death penalty on his murderer, but I feel that a life sentence should mean just that; for them to lose their liberty until the end of their days, even if they lived 1000 years.

I fail to see why it is acceptable for murderers such as Leslie Grantham perhaps, to enjoy the fruits of a successful life while their victims can have none.

I have heard it suggested that life sentence convicts could choose a death penalty as an option, but I'm undecided on this one and on how it would work

 

[Suddenly]

Sorry, but if you strap someone to a table and pump deadly fluids into his veins all the while saying, "Gee, I hope he isn't innocent," that isn't an "error." There's just a world of difference between that and accidentally missing the brake.

Not really... when you get in the car you are in effect hoping that you won't miss the brake and kill someone. We can say that at some point people will miss the brake, so if we apply the idea that we intend all reasonable mistakes we could conclude that every time a person drives a car that person is responsible for .0004 deaths or something...

Every potentially dangerous action has risk. The mistake here is not the executioner pumping window cleaner into the innocent person... the mistake is when the system declares that person guilty in the first place and fails to change that on review. The rest is just machinery.

I couldn't tell you either way. I don't imagine the death penalty being any real kind of deterrent, but on the other hand I'm at a loss to see how it could actually encourage crime.

Preverse incentives. The fear of the death penalty encourages both more drastic steps not to be caught and the idea that there is nothing to lose by commiting further crimes.

Yeah, but like others have said, it's not undoable. We don't allow the government to chop off body parts for much the same reason. Or would you advocate castration for rapists?

I might for rapists but rape really isn't usually about sex as much as it is about power and control IMO... Castrate a rapist and I'm afraid we've just created a murderer... Plus there is a "cruel and unusual" problem there. Other than that we just have a cultural sensitivity towards this sort of thing that is odd if we think about it. Death is OK but chopping off a pinky toe gives people the willies...

Time in prison really isn't undoable either. It is just a smaller mistake if it is caught during a person's lifetime, and these days based on mandatory review I'd feel comfortable stating the informed opinion that it is more likely that on average a mistake will be caught during the lifetime of the person sentenced to death than the person sentenced to life.

On the "catching the mistake before death" front I'd suggest that as applied today, the DP may actually be more humane, as weird as that sounds...

 

[shanek]

My family is punished for life by the loss.

So punish the perp for life. I have no problem with that. But it you take his life, you're no better than he is.

I don't wish the death penalty on his murderer, but I feel that a life sentence should mean just that; for them to lose their liberty until the end of their days, even if they lived 1000 years.

Agreed 100%.

I have heard it suggested that life sentence convicts could choose a death penalty as an option, but I'm undecided on this one and on how it would work

If they want to kill themselves, I have no problem with that. Let 'em strangle themselves with their shoelaces.

 

[shanek]

Not really... when you get in the car you are in effect hoping that you won't miss the brake and kill someone.[/b]

But the point is, the death would be an accidental act. The chances are overwhelming that I will reach my destination having not killed anyone. We're talking about causing a death on purpose.

We can say that at some point people will miss the brake, so if we apply the idea that we intend all reasonable mistakes we could conclude that every time a person drives a car that person is responsible for .0004 deaths or something...

No, we can't, because that's just wrong. If I never miss the brake, if I never cause the death of others, then I am responsible for 0 deaths. It doesn't matter how many other people are missing the brake.

And I'm also not saying that people who kill people in their cars, however accidental, should go off scot-free.

Every potentially dangerous action has risk. The mistake here is not the executioner pumping window cleaner into the innocent person... the mistake is when the system declares that person guilty in the first place and fails to change that on review. The rest is just machinery.

Fine, but it's the system we're talking about.

Preverse incentives. The fear of the death penalty encourages both more drastic steps not to be caught and the idea that there is nothing to lose by commiting further crimes.

Perhaps. I don't think it really does anything either way.

Death is OK but chopping off a pinky toe gives people the willies...

Which should tell you something about people who think that way. They're horrified by cultures that cut off fingers or even hands for stealing, but have no problem with the death penalty?

Time in prison really isn't undoable either.

But at least the person can continue on with what he had before. He has his life, and all of his body parts, intact. Maybe he can't get those past years back, but he is granted again all of those future years.

 

[RandFan]

So punish the perp for life. I have no problem with that. But it you take his life, you're no better than he is.

I will take exception to that. I don't know the victim or the perp but I'm willing to bet that the perp gave no thought to his victim and certainly did not afford the victim any rights to due process or take into account any mitigating factors. A perpetrator is guilty of the crime of murder. Their victims are typically innocent. There is a quantum difference between the Perpetrator and the family of the victim that seeks justice.

 

[Suddenly]

I will take exception to that. I don't know the victim or the perp but I'm willing to bet that the perp gave no thought to his victim and certainly did not afford the victim any rights to due process or take into account any mitigating factors. A perpetrator is guilty of the crime of murder. Their victims are typically innocent. There is a quantum difference between the Perpetrator and the family of the victim that seeks justice.

It also suggests the questions:

"If we imprison someone for imprisoning someone are we any better than he is?"

and maybe better yet...

"If we fine someone for theft..."

 

[Suddenly]

But the point is, the death would be an accidental act. The chances are overwhelming that I will reach my destination having not killed anyone. We're talking about causing a death on purpose.

THE GLASS IS HALF FULL, DAGGUMMIT!!!!! NOT HALF EMPTY!!!! YOU MUST BE BLIND!!!!



It seems to be a philosophical difference that really doesn't matter all that much as per the concepts of "intentional."

Although if a person is wrongfully imprisoned do you see that as non-accidental as well?

Which should tell you something about people who think that way. They're horrified by cultures that cut off fingers or even hands for stealing, but have no problem with the death penalty?

Oh.... I have hours of enjoyment giggling about the absurdities of western culture.

You have an intersting point, although whether spending 10 years in prison for theft is better or worse than losing a thumb is also an interesting question...

I suspect it draws from the western need for economic productivity. If you chop off a hand or leg you create a less than efficent labor asset... better to imprison them....

But at least the person can continue on with what he had before. He has his life, and all of his body parts, intact. Maybe he can't get those past years back, but he is granted again all of those future years.

Right. Still a mistake, just a smaller one.

 

[shanek]

I will take exception to that. I don't know the victim or the perp but I'm willing to bet that the perp gave no thought to his victim and certainly did not afford the victim any rights to due process or take into account any mitigating factors.

So, a murderer is not a murderer when he feels remorse?

A perpetrator is guilty of the crime of murder. Their victims are typically innocent. There is a quantum difference between the Perpetrator and the family of the victim that seeks justice.

This is a circular argument. We're arguing whether the death penalty is justified. You can't assume that as a given.

 

[shanek]

Although if a person is wrongfully imprisoned do you see that as non-accidental as well?

Yes. He may have been imprisoned under a misapprehension, that he had committed a crime he hadn't, but that still doesn't make the act any less deliberate.

You have an intersting point, although whether spending 10 years in prison for theft is better or worse than losing a thumb is also an interesting question...

Can you get your thumb back if they find out you're innocent after all? Can you get even part of your thumb back? And I mean, all attached and functioning and opposable and everything.

Right. Still a mistake, just a smaller one.

And, more importantly, one you can rectify. The person can be made whole again.

 

[Cleopatra]

Has Shane joined the thread? I unsubcribe from it.

Thanks for the interesting discussion.

 

[RandFan]

So, a murderer is not a murderer when he feels remorse?

No, nothing in my post suggests this. The family member who demands justice is not the same as the perpetrator. Your statement is demonstrably incorrect.

This is a circular argument. We're arguing whether the death penalty is justified. You can't assume that as a given.

It is not circular at all. There are 3 parties. The victim, the perpetrator and the family of the victim.

1.) The victim was innocent.

2.) The perpetrator is not.

3.) The family member is not trying to murder an innocent person.

By your logic we could not fine a thief or we would be as guilty as the thief. By your logic we could not lock up someone who had held another against their will or we would be as guilty as the perpetrator.

In short your logic does not work. Claiming circular logic won't change that fact.