The reason for a death penalty

[CFLarsen]

Tricky,

Please answer the remaining questions:

• Will you allow even a petty criminal a chance to be beneficial to society? Yes or no?
  
  
• Why do you need rights to protect you from your own government?
  
  
• Are there requirements for you to be productive to society, if you are to be free?
  
  
• How rare, exactly, are these rare cases where it is worse for society to keep them alive?
  
• What is the "great frequency" with which a prisoner does something horrible to a guard or another prisoner?

 

[Tricky]

No Claus. Now let go of Mommy's skirt and quit whining "But WHY" or they'll be no Sesame Street for you tomorrow.

 

[CFLarsen]

No

Failure to explain your position noted.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Technically, soldiers of the enemy are not criminals. I am not disagreeing that the decision to try to kill them is wrong, I am saying it is a conscious, even cold-blooded decision to do so, a decision that is made based on evidence. It should be noted, though, that in modern times, only soldiers (and a few others) are authorized by their country to do this job. A private citizen is not trained or authorized by our government to do this task. In the same way, only the judicial system is authorized to hand down the death penalty. It is incorrect to say that because the judicial system can do it that anyone could do it.

You are mixing two different topics here.
You quoted me on why I think death penalty can be acceptable in wars and so on ( but not during peace time ), and you did not address that point, so far.

I am not convinced, as you apparently are, that the unjust death of a person is the worst consequence of the imperfection. I think the needs of society are greater than the life of an individual. Sounds cold, I know, but it is really no more than an extension of what you have agreed to, that there are times when it is right to kill. It is a "big picture" assessment of what those times are.

I think the unjust death of a person, that is, killing an innocent, is one ( if not the worst ) crime a society can do, as it put the society itself on the same level of a cold blood killer.
If you condone the killing of an innocent, you condone maybe also the crimes of Hitler and Stalin

 

[Matteo Martini]

They might think that, but they would be wrong and would themselves be a criminal if they acted on this. Only duly appointed agencies, such as the judicial system and military branches, are authorized to make the decisions to decide in advance to kill a person. Obviously, killing in self defense is not a decision made in advance.

Why should the men on the jury have the power to decide if a man has to be sent to death for having killed a woman and not the husband of that woman, who has witnessed the crime directly?
What makes the jury better suited than the husband himself to find out if the criminal is guilty or not in this particular case, where the husband was a witness and the jury was not?

 

[Tricky]

Failure to explain your position noted.

In crayon, I'm guessing.

 

[Tricky]

You are mixing two different topics here.
You quoted me on why I think death penalty can be acceptable in wars and so on ( but not during peace time ), and you did not address that point, so far.

No, it is you who are changing topics. The "death penalty" is something applied in a court of justice. You don't do that in war. You choose to kill based on evidence (that satisfies you) that it is justified. War is one such situation. Self defense or defense of your loved ones is another.

When I say I support the death penalty in extremely rare cases, I am saying that I agree that the courts of justice have the right to make such decisions. This does not mean that I think that I also have this right.

I think the unjust death of a person, that is, killing an innocent, is one ( if not the worst ) crime a society can do, as it put the society itself on the same level of a cold blood killer.

So you have said, time and time again, and yet you have not supported it. The court, by its very definition, is not cold-blooded. It does not kill without reason. It kills (rarely) based on evidence. Your repeated use of the term "cold-blooded" is nothing more than an emotional appeal. Yes I understand how emotional you are about it, but that is not good enough. You have to support it with logic. In my opinion, you haven't.

If you condone the killing of an innocent, you condone maybe also the crimes of Hitler and Stalin

I do not condone the killing of innocents. I (rarely) condone the killing of criminals convicted by a court of law, depending on the crime and the evidence. Oh, and just as as friendly piece of advice, don't Godwin your argument. It diminishes your case and your credibility.

Why should the men on the jury have the power to decide if a man has to be sent to death for having killed a woman and not the husband of that woman, who has witnessed the crime directly?
What makes the jury better suited than the husband himself to find out if the criminal is guilty or not in this particular case, where the husband was a witness and the jury was not?

Because that's how we, as a government, decided the legal system works. Are you suggesting that people should be allowed to violate any law they disagree with?

 

[D'rok]

The court, by its very definition, is not cold-blooded. It does not kill without reason. It kills (rarely) based on evidence.

Minor quibble: In my understanding of the word, the court, by its very definition, is cold-blooded - i.e., there is (supposedly) no passion involved in its decision to kill.

Your repeated use of the term "cold-blooded" is nothing more than an emotional appeal. Yes I understand how emotional you are about it, but that is not good enough. You have to support it with logic. In my opinion, you haven't.

I've been lurking, and I have yet to see you present any compelling rational, logical argument that executing bad people is better for society than imprisoning them. What is this "big picture" justification for state-sanctioned killing that you keep talking about? You've said (paraphrasing) "why should we keep them around if they can't be rehabilitated?" Why, indeed. This hardly answers the question, "why kill them?"

 

[Tricky]

Minor quibble: In my understanding of the word, the court, by its very definition, is cold-blooded - i.e., there is (supposedly) no passion involved in its decision to kill.

That is a legitimate quibble, and we could probably spend a lot of time discussing what "cold-blooded" means. In popular parlance, it means to kill without regret, but not necessarily without passion. Indeed it means killing on even a very minor whims or passion. You might refer to a criminal as "cold-blooded" because they kill for the pleasure of watching things die. You can define that as "without passion" if you like, but I think you can make a good case that it is just the opposite.

Similarly, you might describe a hunter as "cold-blooded" because he kills without regard for the feelings of the animal. However, you certainly could not say he kills without reason, if indeed he is hunting to feed himself and his family.

So the whole "cold-blooded" thing is a can of worms and would require all kinds of semantical discussions if we are to agree on what it means. This is one reason why I prefer not to use such "hot-button" words in discussions such as this and I enjoin Matteo from his habit of repeatedly doing so. It is an emotional (and semantical argument), not a logical one.

I've been lurking, and I have yet to see you present any compelling rational, logical argument that executing bad people is better for society than imprisoning them. What is this "big picture" justification for state-sanctioned killing that you keep talking about? You've said (paraphrasing) "why should we keep them around if they can't be rehabilitated?" Why, indeed. This hardly answers the question, "why kill them?"

Because even incarcerated they are a danger to society, and, in my opinion, it is more cruel to keep something alive that you declare there is no possibility of setting free, than it is to end their suffering.

But having said that, I will restate my position from the very beginning that the death penalty is something that should be used in only the rarest of circumstances and only after exhaustive examination. The reasons need to be compelling, but I do not believe that there are never any reasons.

 

[D'rok]

Let's get down to the core of the issue.

Tricky, you've argued that executing is less cruel than imprisonment. You've also argued that imprisonment creates risks to other inmates and to guards. You've said that execution, in severe cases, serves the public good more so than imprisonment.

Put simply, you consider the moral evil of execution to be lesser than the moral evil of imprisonment coupled with the risk of possible future moral evils resulting from imprisonment, and that such moral evils are bad for society as a whole. Why? I think the answer is that this is what you feel to be right.

I feel the following to be right: The moral evil of execution is greater than the moral evil of imprisonment coupled with the risk of future moral evils resulting from imprisonment, and that the greater moral evil is bad for society as a whole.

All of our arguments will be attempts to support those two positions. But if we're honest with ourselves, we should admit that they will only be rationalizations of what our moral instincts tell us.

I think everyone is making arguments from emotion on some level, and there likely can't be any meeting of minds.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

I disagree. Perfection of anything is impossible. I could turn this around and say, "The fact remains that some murderers have, and will continue to kill or commit other crimes. As long as that possibility exists, we must continue to allow use of the only certain way of stopping them."


I disagree. Every case is different. Even Matteo has admitted that there are situations where it is acceptable, even noble to take a human life. We differ on what those situations are.

Sorry it took so long to respond. It has been a bear of a weekend with my Dad.

I agree that perfection in anything is impossible. For that reason I think it imperative that we, as a society, take every precaution to assure that those imperfections have as minimal impact on a citizen's life as possible.

And maybe where we really differ and always will is that I don't ever think it is noble to take a human life. I can see where it might be necessary for self-protection, but never noble.

Yes, I think it is one of the defining marks of civilization that the wishes of the individual are subordinate to the needs of society. We even codify these things. They are called "laws".

I agree that that society needs to set expectations and limits on the individual, but isn't there an even more important need for laws to protect the individual and his rights against the intrusion of the government? The Bill of Rights and US Constitution are the foundation of those protections, but the government has been known to try to impinge on those rights.

The justice system should be for the benefit of society. If a person can be a benefit to society, they should not be killed. If you never plan to let them be, then it is cruel. BTW, I would reserve the death penalty for those deemed by the justice system to be unrehabilitatable, which would not include all murderers, though it might include some other types of criminals.


Hopefully, they can become productive. Some will, some won't. No system is perfect. The job of the justice system is to decide this.


Because each case is different.


The primary purpose of our justice system should be rehabilitation. If we have no intention of rehabilitating them, then we should not just keep them around just so we can pat ourselves on the back and call ourselves "civilized".


I don't believe in punishment for the sake of punishment. I only believe that it should be one tool used in rehabilitation, and not the only tool by any means.


Certainly I won't. As I say, I'm not into gratuitous punishment. It must have a purpose.

I think you hit it on the head when you say that "the primary purpose of our Justice system should be rehabilitation". (bolding mine) Unfortunately, I don't think the federal prison system is set up that way.

If a citizen commits a heinous crime, the result is that he is placed in a maximum security prison, given three meals a day, and locked into a cell with one or two other guys and expected to survive in an environment of gangs and drugs. Is it any wonder that these guys come out the way they do.

However, if the authorities try to introduce programs to rehabilitate prisoners, provide them with counseling and support, and make the experience anything less than the hell it is, they are accused of coddling the murders and rapists.

They are not killed unless the court has determined that they are not innocent. We cannot throw out the judicial system because it is not perfect.

I agree, we can't throw out the judicial system, nor can we ignore that that system is imperfect. Those are immutable givens and as such it is very easy to see that the imperfect system could incorrectly determine someone is "not innocent". If that could be the case shouldn't we withold from that system the right to take someone's life?

 

[Leftus]

The difference is that we can make retributions to the prisoner if we later free him. There are no retributions possible to a dead man.

So it's cheaper to be wrong. And just for you

Of course, making retributions, as you put it, doesn't do anything to solve the problem. The problem isn't with the punishment but how that punishment was decided and just handing out money as an apology doesn't address the problems. If you've got a problems with the process you don't muck around with the result til you are comfortable with what happens when you get it wrong.

Families sue for wrongful death all the time. How is this not a possible retribution? Suppose this person was wrongfully held in prison til he died, for whatever reason, do we then get rid of all imprisonment because there is no way to rectify what happened to him?

Life in prison is a death sentence. Life just lets them know where they are going to die and takes more time to accomplish that feet. How is drawing life out of someone slowly more civilized?

Why does life imprisonment mean no due process?

I said less, not none. So if you could answer the question as asked ...

---

If it is OK for the judiciary system ( which is made up by men and women ), to " take a life under certain circumstances ", then, it is OK also for everybody else to do the same

A process commonly referred to as self defense.

 

[Matteo Martini]

A process commonly referred to as self defense.

Wrong.
I consider killing for self-defense as killing another human being when in immediate threat of death.
This does not apply to a jury that sends a person to die nor to a victim that kills a criminal seeking revenge/justice

 

[Matteo Martini]

Life in prison is a death sentence.

No.
Life in prison is life in prison

Life just lets them know where they are going to die and takes more time to accomplish that feet. How is drawing life out of someone slowly more civilized?

So, anyone of us has been sentenced to death, is that what you are saying?

 

[CFLarsen]

So it's cheaper to be wrong. And just for you

How much cheaper? Be specific.

Of course, making retributions, as you put it, doesn't do anything to solve the problem. The problem isn't with the punishment but how that punishment was decided and just handing out money as an apology doesn't address the problems. If you've got a problems with the process you don't muck around with the result til you are comfortable with what happens when you get it wrong.

It most certainly helps to solve the problem with wrongful incarcerations. Just look at how DNA evidence helps free - and jail - people.

Families sue for wrongful death all the time. How is this not a possible retribution? Suppose this person was wrongfully held in prison til he died, for whatever reason, do we then get rid of all imprisonment because there is no way to rectify what happened to him?

Of course not. While unfortunate, there were no attempts to kill him. The difference lies in intent.

Life in prison is a death sentence. Life just lets them know where they are going to die and takes more time to accomplish that feet. How is drawing life out of someone slowly more civilized?

Nonsense. Life in prison is life in prison, period.

I said less, not none. So if you could answer the question as asked ...

Less, then. How?

 

[Tricky]

Let's get down to the core of the issue.

Tricky, you've argued that executing is less cruel than imprisonment. You've also argued that imprisonment creates risks to other inmates and to guards. You've said that execution, in severe cases, serves the public good more so than imprisonment.

Put simply, you consider the moral evil of execution to be lesser than the moral evil of imprisonment coupled with the risk of possible future moral evils resulting from imprisonment, and that such moral evils are bad for society as a whole. Why? I think the answer is that this is what you feel to be right.

I feel the following to be right: The moral evil of execution is greater than the moral evil of imprisonment coupled with the risk of future moral evils resulting from imprisonment, and that the greater moral evil is bad for society as a whole.

All of our arguments will be attempts to support those two positions. But if we're honest with ourselves, we should admit that they will only be rationalizations of what our moral instincts tell us.

I think everyone is making arguments from emotion on some level, and there likely can't be any meeting of minds.

Of course I feel my position is superior, else I wouldn't hold it, right?

But you see, given that there are so very many cases and situations, it is extremely unlikely that the choice to execute is wrong in every single case. I know it is hard to sift through those cases and decide which ones those are, but that is what our legal system is for.

While it is true that both of our positions are based on moral, hence emotional stances, one of them is absolutist. I do not argue that every murderer should be executed, not even most of them, not even many of them. Just a very few of them that, by the best examination we can give, are not rehabilitatible and the courts should have the ability to make that decision and act in the way that they think best addresses it. The argument that there are never any such cases is an absolutist position which, by it's nature, does not allow a case-by-case examination of the decision to execute or not. I tend to shy away from absolutist solutions of anything.

 

[Tricky]

Just ran across this comic strip. Timely.
http://news.yahoo.com/comics/uclick...cbw20071209;_ylt=ApGackHKfWvxgLbr8zPyKWOg58IF

 

[HarryKeogh]

Just ran across this comic strip. Timely.

Exactly where did you find this strip. At what time? Be specific. Don't even think of not answering or I will note the evasion.

 

[CFLarsen]

I do not argue that every murderer should be executed, not even most of them, not even many of them. Just a very few of them that, by the best examination we can give, are not rehabilitatible

What exactly does that mean?

That they will kill again?

 

[Tricky]

Exactly where did you find this strip. At what time? Be specific. Don't even think of not answering or I will note the evasion.

On Yahoo Comics. At exactly 8:10 Central Standard Time.

Now, how did you know exactly what post would follow yours? The timliness of your comments cannot be circumstantial. Are you psychic, or are you secretly living with Claus?