theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Darat is wrong. Beyond reasonable doubt is nowhere near absolute certainty.
Split Thread Why Capital punishment?
- Thread starter Emily's Cat
- Start date
-
- Tags
- capital punishment
I think this is exacerbated in systems like the USA with its overtly political system of justice but even when that is effectively removed, the concept of being judged by a jury of your peers has long passed its use by date. As you point out the expectations we now place on what a jury may have to consider especially in more complex cases is beyond most of our peer groups' ability to understand.
Unfortunately in the UK there is no way to know what a jury has actually considered and what they have used to come to their verdict, but the "test trial" evidence is as we know quite damning, even down to knowing the physical attractiveness of a witness and/or accused will bias a jury, in favour of the physically attractive person.
ETA: went looking for the latest research into possible jury bias and came across this article from just a few days ago, as ever reality insists on being more complicated than we may like https://theconversation.com/halo-ef...ss-guilty-how-the-evidence-is-changing-220349
Last edited:
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
I would agree, except for that last point of cost. Saying cost has no part at all in the question suggests that there is some absolute requirement that the specific task of execution occur at any cost and at any sacrifice, because some absolute or at least over-arching concept of what justice is would be forsaken otherwise. This would put it in a unique position among all the issues that a society with finite resources must balance between need and cost, even where social justice and the welfare of its citizens are at stake. It may well be that as things now stand, cost is not a pertinent issue, either because other factors (like the two in question) are enough, or because the cost is within bounds, but I think that's a matter of practice, not of theory, and open to argument.
That is not to say there cannot be times at which it is appropriate or morally right to say "Give me liberty or give me death," or the like, when one's principles simply cannot allow compromise at any cost. I just don't think this is one of them.
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
You mean last century. The last public execution in USAia was in 1936.
Well, I don't think that's the case. I believe that eventually all crime, even the worst, will be accepted as merely a symptom of societal or mental problems, and criminals as people that can and should be helped. That trend has already begun in much of the world.
Of course, I don't know how to prove my point within those parameters. A society that has completely rejected retribution in favour of rehabilitation is indistinguishable from one that accepts the rehabilitation process as sufficient punishment. You say Norwegians accept Breivik's punishment as sufficient, I say they've accepted that punishment doesn't really solve anything (attitudes may vary).
Manopolus
Metaphorical Anomaly
On this one I'm kind of conflicted... but just barely.
My ideas of justice revolve mainly around making sure it doesn't happen again. If that necessarily means reform, then we should reform. If that necessarily means holding captives, then that is also what we should do. When should we resort to killing, though?
I don't consider sentencing to be a deterrent. To be quite frank, the fear of getting caught and exposed, alone, should deter enough without resorting to either of these measures. And I think the mere shame of being exposed does just that more effectively than most sentencing when you're dealing with people who don't have prior convictions... at least if the crime is a socially unacceptable one (which anything considered a punishable crime should always unambiguously be. I'm definitely not talking about drug possession, here).
I support the death penalty when it is clear that the person is a danger to society and can be of little benefit to society. I'm not sure who should make those judgments, however, or where the line should be drawn. For one thing, I would consider (and I'm sure some disagree) someone who has been arrested for theft something like 20 times a more logical candidate than someone with a clean record who committed a single (but hideous) murder. Which instance more likely reflects the person's character? Well, the one who has done it multiple times.
There is no case where I would support sentencing as vengeance for the victims. That serves no legitimate purpose. I suppose if the victims' families want to jump into a gladiator ring with them, we could do that, but I'd have to insist that they do it themselves in some way if that's what justice is for. The state should not serve that function in its entirety for them. If they don't do it themselves, there's no satisfaction in it, anyway.
I'm not usually a utilitarian, but on this particular subject, I suppose I am one. Whatever serves the functions that we're trying to achieve is best, with an emphasis of doing no more harm than absolutely necessary to achieve it. A mere public shaming is sometimes sufficient (and rarely administered). Sometimes, the only way to prevent further crime is death. I don't claim to know those boundaries, though, so I mostly leave it up to the professionals (who also don't know, but they do study it).
Please note that I also don't support captivity of any sort for more than five years, but the alternative to longer sentences is obviously death. If they aren't reformed after five years of trying, they'll never be. I do think we should always try that long (perhaps cumulatively for repeated lesser offenses) before carrying out an execution, though.
...so yeah. Maybe I'm more radical than liberal on this one. I don't think we've even got it close to right.
My ideas of justice revolve mainly around making sure it doesn't happen again. If that necessarily means reform, then we should reform. If that necessarily means holding captives, then that is also what we should do. When should we resort to killing, though?
I don't consider sentencing to be a deterrent. To be quite frank, the fear of getting caught and exposed, alone, should deter enough without resorting to either of these measures. And I think the mere shame of being exposed does just that more effectively than most sentencing when you're dealing with people who don't have prior convictions... at least if the crime is a socially unacceptable one (which anything considered a punishable crime should always unambiguously be. I'm definitely not talking about drug possession, here).
I support the death penalty when it is clear that the person is a danger to society and can be of little benefit to society. I'm not sure who should make those judgments, however, or where the line should be drawn. For one thing, I would consider (and I'm sure some disagree) someone who has been arrested for theft something like 20 times a more logical candidate than someone with a clean record who committed a single (but hideous) murder. Which instance more likely reflects the person's character? Well, the one who has done it multiple times.
There is no case where I would support sentencing as vengeance for the victims. That serves no legitimate purpose. I suppose if the victims' families want to jump into a gladiator ring with them, we could do that, but I'd have to insist that they do it themselves in some way if that's what justice is for. The state should not serve that function in its entirety for them. If they don't do it themselves, there's no satisfaction in it, anyway.
I'm not usually a utilitarian, but on this particular subject, I suppose I am one. Whatever serves the functions that we're trying to achieve is best, with an emphasis of doing no more harm than absolutely necessary to achieve it. A mere public shaming is sometimes sufficient (and rarely administered). Sometimes, the only way to prevent further crime is death. I don't claim to know those boundaries, though, so I mostly leave it up to the professionals (who also don't know, but they do study it).
Please note that I also don't support captivity of any sort for more than five years, but the alternative to longer sentences is obviously death. If they aren't reformed after five years of trying, they'll never be. I do think we should always try that long (perhaps cumulatively for repeated lesser offenses) before carrying out an execution, though.
...so yeah. Maybe I'm more radical than liberal on this one. I don't think we've even got it close to right.
Last edited:
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
That's not justice, that's prevention. Or deterrence. You could pay a guy a couple million bucks to retire to Belize and give up his US citizenship. But I doubt a lot of your fellow citizens would consider that a just outcome.
The argument that the death penalty deters people from committing murder falls flat to me, there's not much credible evidence for it. Who does that thinking, "Hmm, probably shouldn't do this because I might die if convicted." Again, depending on where you live. Could be faster in some places more than others.
It is true though that some defendants will plea for life without parole to take capital punishment off the table to avoid trial. Yes I did that to somebody, but would rather not face it myself.
Victims' families and witnesses to not have to go through the horrific details for weeks at trial plays a large part for many. Just don't think it's a driving factor at the time of the crime, or anything leading up to it.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Yeah, I'm not a big fan of the deterrence argument, either. For one thing, I think the deterrent effect is overhyped by its proponents. More importantly, it is a fundamental philosophical principle for me that the purpose of a criminal sentence is justice. Not rehabilitation. Not deterrence. Not prevention.
Rehabilitation is mercy, or a pragmatic attempt to sustain a civil society, or both. I think mercy has an important place in a community, right alongside justice. I'm not against rehab. I just don't think that is or should be the point of a criminal sentence.
Deterrence is... a dubious proposition, for me.
Prevention is when you have someone who's so insane that we don't see any moral agency in them, and so we incarcerate them to prevent their acting out.
Rehabilitation is mercy, or a pragmatic attempt to sustain a civil society, or both. I think mercy has an important place in a community, right alongside justice. I'm not against rehab. I just don't think that is or should be the point of a criminal sentence.
Deterrence is... a dubious proposition, for me.
Prevention is when you have someone who's so insane that we don't see any moral agency in them, and so we incarcerate them to prevent their acting out.
Manopolus
Metaphorical Anomaly
I suppose so, but what else to you call the system? Justice is the word we use to describe the whole system, and I don't tend to consider it explicit to a particular purpose among the many it claims to serve.
But indeed, the word "justice" tends to be wrapped up into notions of "deserves" and "blames" both of which I consider to be entirely human concoctions. There isn't any physical element of existence to justify those notions other than mere cause and effect with a little emotion added for flavor.
Which basically means that the word is a synonym for "punishment" and "vengeance." It's using the past as a justification for future "pretend-causal" behavior by the responder without asking the question of outcome (at least not yet).
So you're not wrong. But what else do I call the system?
And don't get me wrong. I do realize that these notions could very well be functionally "baked in" to our social behavior by nature (mainly related to child rearing and social learning). But they're not entirely functionally sound in the application. These instincts potentially go wrong more often than not.
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 29,848
Historically, the purpose of most legal systems is Restitution - hence concepts like Weregild .
The idea is that a living murderer can work and pay to assist the family of victim to make up for the loss they occurred, at least in the monetary sense.
Capital punishment is therefore in some way a punishment for the victims.
The idea is that a living murderer can work and pay to assist the family of victim to make up for the loss they occurred, at least in the monetary sense.
Capital punishment is therefore in some way a punishment for the victims.
Last edited:
Manopolus
Metaphorical Anomaly
Which is why I think that the victim(s) (or their family, friends, whatever, if the victim is unable) should be the one to do it, perhaps only by pushing a button. And if they choose not to, then it should be considered mercy, and thus not carried out.
I wouldn't even be against corporal punishment (horsewhipping, whatever) under these conditions. But I'm not entirely okay with the state performing said action in its entirety. As long as we stop short of cutting body parts off (permanent maiming/castration, etc.), I'm good with it, as long as the right person is doing it. The state could enable it, but a punishment task should be performed by the wronged who demand it.
Of course, it probably wouldn't be carried out as often as you might think in this case. I'm okay with that, too. Being granted mercy by the wronged is often a life-changing event. Human behavior is wrapped up in symbolic gestures like this, and that one is extremely potent.
-----
But on the other side of capital punishment (not really punishment from this angle), if we are certain that a person is plain evil and can't be reformed, then it makes a lot more sense to just kill them, rather than holding them in captivity until death (or near it). It's just more practical. Five years of captivity is the maximum I condone, regardless of the crime. That number may be arbitrary, but it seems a good number to me. I hear people talk about it like it's a short sentence, but five years is actually a long damn time. I don't even consider myself the same person I was five years ago, and I'm over 50. Considering that most (recent) convicts are younger than me, that just makes that time even more relevant.
Last edited:
Well, if a person can be reformed, we should try and keep trying.
But if a person is literally so evil that nothing could possibly change them, that the combined efforts of psychiatry and sociology and whatever other relevant sciences there are do not have an answer, then they never really stood a chance to begin with, and it seems rather cruel to kill them for it.
Manopolus
Metaphorical Anomaly
...and I say that's less cruel than keeping them in lifelong captivity. But, of course, you'd better make damn sure you've got the right person. I do realize that's the other problem.
Last edited:
Surely that depends on the type of captivity.
Manopolus
Metaphorical Anomaly
Of course it does, but I doubt we're willing to provide a gilded cage.
And that's another thing with the current system, though. Prison conditions are ridiculously inconsistent. Even considering the punishment angle, identical sentences can be inconsistent in the actual conditions they're being carried out in. But it's off-topic.
Last edited:
It doesn't need to be a gilded cage, it just needs to be bearable, not actively vindictive, and conducive to rehabilitation (as all prisons should be).
And this isn't just some bleeding heart's appeal towards the worst criminals. Even if some are beyond help, evolving this framework would end up helping others.
Manopolus
Metaphorical Anomaly
Well, I'm not strongly on one side or the other. It just makes more sense to me to get it over with and move on instead of wasting resources.
...in some particular cases, mind. Not if reform/(redemption?) is reasonably possible. Not sure if redemption is the right word. Too religious, perhaps.
Last edited:
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
I am opposed to Capital Punishment with one exception:
Serial and Mass Killers whould be done away with. They are beyond hope of being rehabilated, and I don't trust the system to keep them in prison for life.
Serial and Mass Killers whould be done away with. They are beyond hope of being rehabilated, and I don't trust the system to keep them in prison for life.