Full Version: The death penalty
QUOTE(Ted @ Sep 14 2006, 10:15 PM) 
Easy to say and hard to do. The states vary all over the place and there is no consensus on if or when to use life “without possibility of parole”. Many states have neither and as Amlord has pointed out many folks now consider life without parole to be “cruel”. justifies it.
Ted, in answering my post, you ignored half of it, then proceeded to restate a fallacious point I had dealt with at length in the section you chose to ignore. Baffling.
Thus, in rebuttal of your restated point, I will quote verbatum the section from my last post which you ignored.
"No it won't, and no it hasn't.
In no country has a life sentence every been deemed 'cruel and unusual punishment' and banned. Not one. Ever. In fact, quite contrary to Amlord's bizarre claim, the opposite is true, in the last 10 years several of the largest countries in Europe have created 'life without parole' laws, France for example. Thus the trend seems to be towards increasing, rather than decreasing jail use in extreme cases.
Besides, even if your point were true (which it isn't), so what? The fact that some people MIGHT come and claim life in prison is mean is a reason not to join the rest of the first world in banning the death penalty? That doesn't even make sense."
QUOTE
Vermillion
Besides, even if your point were true (which it isn't), so what? The fact that some people MIGHT come and claim life in prison is mean is a reason not to join the rest of the first world in banning the death penalty? That doesn't even make sense."
Besides, even if your point were true (which it isn't), so what? The fact that some people MIGHT come and claim life in prison is mean is a reason not to join the rest of the first world in banning the death penalty? That doesn't even make sense."
You misunderstood me. What I mean is there are many states that (like MA where I live) that refuse to pass a “life without possibility of parole” law. Thus when a person is sentenced to ‘life” this can mean he is out in 15yrs, 20yrs or even sooner. IMO if we cannot have a ‘real” life sentence for horrible crimes then the death penalty is the only alternative
I don't think that there has been enough mention of the concept of "Justice" in this debate. If we are not working with an understanding of justice then we are not going to answer the question.
I perused a load of definitions of "Justice" online and was able to boil it down to: Giving to each what is his or her due; subscribing to a policy or balance and fairness in all things.
It is important to consider this concept as a purely ethical debate. Notions of economic utility and revenge are not material to the discussion. Being outraged by a person's actions does not, alone, have any import in determining their punishment.....if you are actually interested in justice anyway....
Let's try an example: Pat sneaks into a stranger's house and kills them in their bed. Pat is captured, given due process and convicted. Is it "Just" for Pat to then be killed?
If we adhere to Hammurabi's Code (eye for an eye) then we say, "YES..a life for a life!" But is that fair and balanced? Is it Just? I could easily argue that it is not. Here goes:
Consider Pat's victim. Not only was this person deprived of their life and pursuits, but others to whom they are tied were also punished by the death. If the victim had a child then that child was deprived of a parent who would support them, nurture them, put them through college, etc... Pat's crime, then, had multiple victims.
If we consider the aforementioned definition of Justice it seems to me that there is no fairness or balance achieved in the killing of Pat. "Balance" would require that the duties and responsibilites that had been the perview of Pat's victim still be carried out. Pat should be responsible for the harm done to the child as a consequence of the killing of the parent. It should NOT be the duty of the state OR the child's surviving family to do what the parent would have or should have done.
A REAL justice system would require a criminal make complete recompense for their action. In the case of murder the criminal, of course, cannot bring back the dead. They can, however, fullfill at least the economic and social duties that were the responsibilities of their victims. If we kill the criminals before they can be forced to make ammends then we are actually thwarting justice.
In this light, our present system of "justice" is doubly disconcerting. Not only are the "living victims" not given fair and balanced (Fox news style) repayment, but the taxpayers are then asked to pay for the criminals' punishments.
Another dilemma created by our present penal system is this: When we incarcerate a vicious criminal we necessarily subject other, innocent individuals to the danger of associating with them. Other inmates, prison guards, doctors, therapists and the like are all at risk when we detain dangerous criminals. If we detain a person in such a way that it is impossible for them to harm others then we run into a problem with the Constitution's Ammendment VIII; the right to protection against cruel and unusual punishment. Is it more cruel to cage someone permanently in a 4x7, steel box than it is to simply end their life? If you have seen footage from inside a supermax prison then you may say, "yes."
In my opinion, a system that provided true Justice would ensure that:
1) The criminal is forced to make recompense for ALL of the damages they cause. (I mean, really, we acknowledge "pain and suffering" in civil cases)
2.) The criminal is no longer free to cause more harm to others.
3.) There is an attempt to heal or rehabilitate BOTH the victim and the criminal through the process of their punishment.
If all three of these are attempted then "Justice" can be had for individuals and the society as a whole.
I would like to add that, in my opinion, forced labor, indentured servitude and any other creative method of exacting repayment would be perfectly acceptable methods of dealing out my version of Justice.
I perused a load of definitions of "Justice" online and was able to boil it down to: Giving to each what is his or her due; subscribing to a policy or balance and fairness in all things.
It is important to consider this concept as a purely ethical debate. Notions of economic utility and revenge are not material to the discussion. Being outraged by a person's actions does not, alone, have any import in determining their punishment.....if you are actually interested in justice anyway....
Let's try an example: Pat sneaks into a stranger's house and kills them in their bed. Pat is captured, given due process and convicted. Is it "Just" for Pat to then be killed?
If we adhere to Hammurabi's Code (eye for an eye) then we say, "YES..a life for a life!" But is that fair and balanced? Is it Just? I could easily argue that it is not. Here goes:
Consider Pat's victim. Not only was this person deprived of their life and pursuits, but others to whom they are tied were also punished by the death. If the victim had a child then that child was deprived of a parent who would support them, nurture them, put them through college, etc... Pat's crime, then, had multiple victims.
If we consider the aforementioned definition of Justice it seems to me that there is no fairness or balance achieved in the killing of Pat. "Balance" would require that the duties and responsibilites that had been the perview of Pat's victim still be carried out. Pat should be responsible for the harm done to the child as a consequence of the killing of the parent. It should NOT be the duty of the state OR the child's surviving family to do what the parent would have or should have done.
A REAL justice system would require a criminal make complete recompense for their action. In the case of murder the criminal, of course, cannot bring back the dead. They can, however, fullfill at least the economic and social duties that were the responsibilities of their victims. If we kill the criminals before they can be forced to make ammends then we are actually thwarting justice.
In this light, our present system of "justice" is doubly disconcerting. Not only are the "living victims" not given fair and balanced (Fox news style) repayment, but the taxpayers are then asked to pay for the criminals' punishments.
Another dilemma created by our present penal system is this: When we incarcerate a vicious criminal we necessarily subject other, innocent individuals to the danger of associating with them. Other inmates, prison guards, doctors, therapists and the like are all at risk when we detain dangerous criminals. If we detain a person in such a way that it is impossible for them to harm others then we run into a problem with the Constitution's Ammendment VIII; the right to protection against cruel and unusual punishment. Is it more cruel to cage someone permanently in a 4x7, steel box than it is to simply end their life? If you have seen footage from inside a supermax prison then you may say, "yes."
In my opinion, a system that provided true Justice would ensure that:
1) The criminal is forced to make recompense for ALL of the damages they cause. (I mean, really, we acknowledge "pain and suffering" in civil cases)
2.) The criminal is no longer free to cause more harm to others.
3.) There is an attempt to heal or rehabilitate BOTH the victim and the criminal through the process of their punishment.
If all three of these are attempted then "Justice" can be had for individuals and the society as a whole.
I would like to add that, in my opinion, forced labor, indentured servitude and any other creative method of exacting repayment would be perfectly acceptable methods of dealing out my version of Justice.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.