Forums » Off-Topic
Heh, I thought you would disagree with point 3. Was the point you were referring me to the one about abdication of responsibility for crimes? That point was not actually justifying punishment, but rather stating that the absence of punishment would remove responsibility for crimes, a point I do not agree with.
Let me try to clarify, I propose exactly the opposite, that the criminals should themselves take responsibility for their actions. E.g. a thief should *wilfully* return anything they stole, those that have caused their victims physical harm should take it *upon themselves* to make whatever reparations are needed, not because they were *forced* to, but because they *chose* to do so. That is what I mean by rehabilitation and being responsible. Until criminals are capable of doing so, they have clearly not understood their mistake and can not be released back into the society the rules of which they have demonstrated to disrespect.
In the example you gave where you committed a hypothetical murder and gave yourself up, if you took responsibility for your own actions, took it upon yourself to make reparations to the family of the victim, followed by a course that taught you how to deal with your anger issues without killing people, and could at the end of that demonstrate that you were no longer inclined to kill when angered, I really do not see any point of keeping your locked away any further. If on the other hand you were unwilling to accept responsibility for your actions I would be unwilling to have you in the same society as me. However, I would not at any point even consider putting you down.
I am not proposing to let people walk around abusing other people's freedoms, quite the opposite, I demand that everyone within the society actively supports the freedoms of others or gets removed for everyone else's benefit. To me that guarantees sufficient protection for obeying the society's rules.
You are correct in stating that my system gives nothing to the victims of criminals that refuse to be "fixed" (apart from safety from their attacker). It removes the offenders from society, permanently, but does not ever re-introduce them, which I define as a failure. Yes, there will always be people who are unfixably Bad, and I admit that my system will have a hard time dealing with people like that. However I can not know in advance which ones those are, and I suspect them to be in the vast minority of people who end up committing crimes.
You are right, I have not spent that much time thinking about the issue. As someone who finds the right to life to be the most basic and fundamental right a human can have, and without which no other rights are possible at all (it is impossible to exercise any other right without being alive), I always had the opinion that for anyone to have any rights at all, their right to life must be cast solid in stone, and have never really questioned that thought.
Being a geek I am unfortunately not well read on philosophy, nor a law expert in any shape or form, so please forgive my half-reasoned writing, you have been very good at extracting the meaning implied behind it!
Let me try to clarify, I propose exactly the opposite, that the criminals should themselves take responsibility for their actions. E.g. a thief should *wilfully* return anything they stole, those that have caused their victims physical harm should take it *upon themselves* to make whatever reparations are needed, not because they were *forced* to, but because they *chose* to do so. That is what I mean by rehabilitation and being responsible. Until criminals are capable of doing so, they have clearly not understood their mistake and can not be released back into the society the rules of which they have demonstrated to disrespect.
In the example you gave where you committed a hypothetical murder and gave yourself up, if you took responsibility for your own actions, took it upon yourself to make reparations to the family of the victim, followed by a course that taught you how to deal with your anger issues without killing people, and could at the end of that demonstrate that you were no longer inclined to kill when angered, I really do not see any point of keeping your locked away any further. If on the other hand you were unwilling to accept responsibility for your actions I would be unwilling to have you in the same society as me. However, I would not at any point even consider putting you down.
I am not proposing to let people walk around abusing other people's freedoms, quite the opposite, I demand that everyone within the society actively supports the freedoms of others or gets removed for everyone else's benefit. To me that guarantees sufficient protection for obeying the society's rules.
You are correct in stating that my system gives nothing to the victims of criminals that refuse to be "fixed" (apart from safety from their attacker). It removes the offenders from society, permanently, but does not ever re-introduce them, which I define as a failure. Yes, there will always be people who are unfixably Bad, and I admit that my system will have a hard time dealing with people like that. However I can not know in advance which ones those are, and I suspect them to be in the vast minority of people who end up committing crimes.
You are right, I have not spent that much time thinking about the issue. As someone who finds the right to life to be the most basic and fundamental right a human can have, and without which no other rights are possible at all (it is impossible to exercise any other right without being alive), I always had the opinion that for anyone to have any rights at all, their right to life must be cast solid in stone, and have never really questioned that thought.
Being a geek I am unfortunately not well read on philosophy, nor a law expert in any shape or form, so please forgive my half-reasoned writing, you have been very good at extracting the meaning implied behind it!
In the example you gave where you committed a hypothetical murder and gave yourself up, if you took responsibility for your own actions, took it upon yourself to make reparations to the family of the victim, followed by a course that taught you how to deal with your anger issues without killing people, and could at the end of that demonstrate that you were no longer inclined to kill when angered, I really do not see any point of keeping your locked away any further.
Wow.
Back in college, when I was caught both drinking underage and "hosting a social gathering within College housing at which underage drinking occured," I had to say I was really, really sorry and take a little online class, too! Seriously, even had to write a 500 word essay about how Drinking Was Bad. True story. To round out the tale, it was great party, at which I met a cute girl whom I dated for the next year and a half--well worth the essay.
My gut reaction is that you really Do. Not. Get. It. If you want to discuss incommensurable things, try explaining what reparations are for a deliberately, unjustly taken life. Back in law school, I took a course with Ken Fineburg. Fineburg was recently tapped to be Comrade Obama's "Pay Czar" but he is better known as the "9/11 Compensation Czar": basically, he personally reviewed every single claim made against a vast pool of money that was established by the Federal Government to provide compensation to the families of those who died in the terrorist attacks (participation was voluntary, but doing so waived your right to sue anyone for anything over the same loss--which was fine, as we all knew that would be a huge nightmare and ultimately a dead end).
His stories about how to allocate a fixed pool of money in compensation for thousands of lives--many very, very different--are mind-blowing studies in how impossible a calculation that is to make. He had to deal with telling the families of janitors that they would get significantly less than the families of CEOs (though far more than they'd ever get in a wrongful death action, even if one were entirely successful), and with telling the families of those CEOs that, given the deceased's age and earning power, even though they might have been entitled to $X millions in a court of law they'd only get $Y millions because of the fixed nature of the fund and his power to allocate it how he thought most fair. And keep in mind, he was dealing with lives that were, as far as the people making "restitution" were concerned, lost in a terrible accident.
Now, think about how you determine "reparations" for a life that was taken deliberately, even cruelly. And don't tell me that the element of intent doesn't weigh in the determination, i.e., that whether you accidentally harmed me or intentionally harmed me, the harm itself is the same--there is independent and substantial harm done by the malice of the act itself.
This doesn't even begin to touch on the issue of what to do with a penniless killer, or an especially rich one (what if Richard Branson just decided he wanted to be like one famous Russian writer, able to say before he died "I've done everything, even killed a man"?) or whether one would take the status of the victim into consideration (should poor, family-less, friendless people cost less to make restitution for? to whom should I make restitution? do I get a freebie for people nobody knows or cares about?).
However, my more historically inclined side wants to agree with you, and introduce you to an alternate system that was used back in certain cultures, where the life of the murderer was placed into the hands of the victim or victims' families. Usually, they would take a blood price for the killing, which was usually the result of some hot-blooded feud between the killed and the victim anyway, and that would be the end of the matter. It occasioned some injustice, but worked pretty well in preventing vendetta. However, the ultimate power to determine reparation lay with the family of the deceased, and if they demanded the killer's life as payment, their request was honored.
As someone who finds the right to life to be the most basic and fundamental right a human can have, and without which no other rights are possible at all (it is impossible to exercise any other right without being alive), I always had the opinion that for anyone to have any rights at all, their right to life must be cast solid in stone, and have never really questioned that thought.
And yet you find punishment for the willful and baseless depravation of that right immoral. How odd.
Was the point you were referring me to the one about abdication of responsibility for crimes?
No, it was the point about the fundamental difference between killing an innocent and executing a killer/rapist. You had asserted that both killings were "entirely unjustified" because it was possible to prevent further threat by rehabilitaton or incarceration of the killer/rapist, and that their death was thus not justified (at least we're not yet arguing about whether the killing/rape of an innocent is, in some way, also justified).
If you want to make the argument that nobody, however cruel and malicious in their deliberate acts, can ever be morally punished by death, have the guts to say it explicitly. Don't pretend that there's no more justification for putting a convicted killer/rapist to death than there was for his or her committing the offending acts in the first place--you just don't happen to find the justification persusaive, something much of the rest of humanity would find repugnant to some degree.
Finally, Geek or no, it's time for you to get your feet wet: start reading Alan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind. Now.
Wow.
Back in college, when I was caught both drinking underage and "hosting a social gathering within College housing at which underage drinking occured," I had to say I was really, really sorry and take a little online class, too! Seriously, even had to write a 500 word essay about how Drinking Was Bad. True story. To round out the tale, it was great party, at which I met a cute girl whom I dated for the next year and a half--well worth the essay.
My gut reaction is that you really Do. Not. Get. It. If you want to discuss incommensurable things, try explaining what reparations are for a deliberately, unjustly taken life. Back in law school, I took a course with Ken Fineburg. Fineburg was recently tapped to be Comrade Obama's "Pay Czar" but he is better known as the "9/11 Compensation Czar": basically, he personally reviewed every single claim made against a vast pool of money that was established by the Federal Government to provide compensation to the families of those who died in the terrorist attacks (participation was voluntary, but doing so waived your right to sue anyone for anything over the same loss--which was fine, as we all knew that would be a huge nightmare and ultimately a dead end).
His stories about how to allocate a fixed pool of money in compensation for thousands of lives--many very, very different--are mind-blowing studies in how impossible a calculation that is to make. He had to deal with telling the families of janitors that they would get significantly less than the families of CEOs (though far more than they'd ever get in a wrongful death action, even if one were entirely successful), and with telling the families of those CEOs that, given the deceased's age and earning power, even though they might have been entitled to $X millions in a court of law they'd only get $Y millions because of the fixed nature of the fund and his power to allocate it how he thought most fair. And keep in mind, he was dealing with lives that were, as far as the people making "restitution" were concerned, lost in a terrible accident.
Now, think about how you determine "reparations" for a life that was taken deliberately, even cruelly. And don't tell me that the element of intent doesn't weigh in the determination, i.e., that whether you accidentally harmed me or intentionally harmed me, the harm itself is the same--there is independent and substantial harm done by the malice of the act itself.
This doesn't even begin to touch on the issue of what to do with a penniless killer, or an especially rich one (what if Richard Branson just decided he wanted to be like one famous Russian writer, able to say before he died "I've done everything, even killed a man"?) or whether one would take the status of the victim into consideration (should poor, family-less, friendless people cost less to make restitution for? to whom should I make restitution? do I get a freebie for people nobody knows or cares about?).
However, my more historically inclined side wants to agree with you, and introduce you to an alternate system that was used back in certain cultures, where the life of the murderer was placed into the hands of the victim or victims' families. Usually, they would take a blood price for the killing, which was usually the result of some hot-blooded feud between the killed and the victim anyway, and that would be the end of the matter. It occasioned some injustice, but worked pretty well in preventing vendetta. However, the ultimate power to determine reparation lay with the family of the deceased, and if they demanded the killer's life as payment, their request was honored.
As someone who finds the right to life to be the most basic and fundamental right a human can have, and without which no other rights are possible at all (it is impossible to exercise any other right without being alive), I always had the opinion that for anyone to have any rights at all, their right to life must be cast solid in stone, and have never really questioned that thought.
And yet you find punishment for the willful and baseless depravation of that right immoral. How odd.
Was the point you were referring me to the one about abdication of responsibility for crimes?
No, it was the point about the fundamental difference between killing an innocent and executing a killer/rapist. You had asserted that both killings were "entirely unjustified" because it was possible to prevent further threat by rehabilitaton or incarceration of the killer/rapist, and that their death was thus not justified (at least we're not yet arguing about whether the killing/rape of an innocent is, in some way, also justified).
If you want to make the argument that nobody, however cruel and malicious in their deliberate acts, can ever be morally punished by death, have the guts to say it explicitly. Don't pretend that there's no more justification for putting a convicted killer/rapist to death than there was for his or her committing the offending acts in the first place--you just don't happen to find the justification persusaive, something much of the rest of humanity would find repugnant to some degree.
Finally, Geek or no, it's time for you to get your feet wet: start reading Alan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind. Now.
"LNH, I'll be sure to drop you a line; you be sure to do the same should life bring you through New York." I assume you have my email, address or phone number? If not you know my alts. Lebermac has it, so does some of CLM.
"Tosh: It is hard for me to understand, however, how you can value some lives higher than others." I think that was aimed at me doc.
Heh, freebies for people nobody cares about, *grin*.
"Tosh: It is hard for me to understand, however, how you can value some lives higher than others." I think that was aimed at me doc.
Heh, freebies for people nobody cares about, *grin*.
Sounds like your underage drinking experience was indeed a joke. You probably knew the dangers already, and were making an informed choice when drinking, making the entire exercise pointless.
The method you propose is not entirely different from what I am getting at here. The main difference being in my case reparations are done in good faith by the reformed offender (possibly many years after the crime) who regrets their actions, and feels the pain and loss they have caused. Historically this method has been used by some cultures too. What the reparations entail of course depends entirely on the ability of the criminal to make reparations. Nothing they will ever do (or you do to them) can replace a life they took, so "to the best of ability" is the most that can be reasonably expected.
Yes, the method proposed by me is very removed by what is done in practice, and I do not see a way of reforming the prison system to use it within my lifetime, even if it were universally supported by everyone, which it is not. However making a greater focus on reforming criminals would be a positive change.
I don't know about your country, but here there is a very high incarceration rate (one of the highest in Western Europe), with very little spare prison capacity. As the result prison terms are very short, and prisons are overfilled with criminals who are just going back and forth between prison and a life of crime. Very little effort is done to try to reform the prisoners while incarcerated (almost half of the prisoners are completely illiterate, almost all do not posses even basic maths skills), many convicted criminals are released back into society without being removed from it at all, and many are released early, some of which go on to murder members of public days after being released.
It is true that I can not morally justify any person or group of people forcibly taking a life from another person if they have a choice of not taking that life. As I have stated and explained previously, I believe the right of a human to life to be absolute, and capital punishment, although having more justification than the crime that caused it, still violates that right. Likewise, I can not justify the state having the power to deprive its citizens of their rights, for any reason.
Actually, most of the rest of the world seems to agree with me on this one. Although still used in more totalitarian regimes (e.g. China, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Belarus, and of course the US) capital punishment is illegal in most countries around the world, and is legal but not used in many of the remaining countries. Of course, "what most countries are doing" does not make it right, and so is largely irrelevant to this discussion.
OK. *Orders "The Closing of the American Mind".*
Just don't expect me to agree with it...
The method you propose is not entirely different from what I am getting at here. The main difference being in my case reparations are done in good faith by the reformed offender (possibly many years after the crime) who regrets their actions, and feels the pain and loss they have caused. Historically this method has been used by some cultures too. What the reparations entail of course depends entirely on the ability of the criminal to make reparations. Nothing they will ever do (or you do to them) can replace a life they took, so "to the best of ability" is the most that can be reasonably expected.
Yes, the method proposed by me is very removed by what is done in practice, and I do not see a way of reforming the prison system to use it within my lifetime, even if it were universally supported by everyone, which it is not. However making a greater focus on reforming criminals would be a positive change.
I don't know about your country, but here there is a very high incarceration rate (one of the highest in Western Europe), with very little spare prison capacity. As the result prison terms are very short, and prisons are overfilled with criminals who are just going back and forth between prison and a life of crime. Very little effort is done to try to reform the prisoners while incarcerated (almost half of the prisoners are completely illiterate, almost all do not posses even basic maths skills), many convicted criminals are released back into society without being removed from it at all, and many are released early, some of which go on to murder members of public days after being released.
It is true that I can not morally justify any person or group of people forcibly taking a life from another person if they have a choice of not taking that life. As I have stated and explained previously, I believe the right of a human to life to be absolute, and capital punishment, although having more justification than the crime that caused it, still violates that right. Likewise, I can not justify the state having the power to deprive its citizens of their rights, for any reason.
Actually, most of the rest of the world seems to agree with me on this one. Although still used in more totalitarian regimes (e.g. China, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Belarus, and of course the US) capital punishment is illegal in most countries around the world, and is legal but not used in many of the remaining countries. Of course, "what most countries are doing" does not make it right, and so is largely irrelevant to this discussion.
OK. *Orders "The Closing of the American Mind".*
Just don't expect me to agree with it...
Antz:
You forgot Japan there... but of course, Japan is (nominally) not a totalitarian regime. I guess the USA don't count as one, either.
But I fully agree with your paragraph concerning a person's unalienable right to live.
@Lecter, concerning the value of life:
You are right, the problem is not only hung up on valuing life, and I apologized to LNH for thinking too highly of my own opinion in that regard.
Valuing life is probably something we can all agree on. But as far as I understand it, you differentiate between the killing of innocents (in cold blood, or cruelly etc.) and the killing of people who have offended the law and, indeed, the 'moral compass' on which (most) people agree, to an extent where you demand retribution for crimes committed.
I do not. I think that it should not be a judiciary system's decision whether a person should die or not (again, excepting wars from this). I am, however, not ignorant of the flaws in the system I propose (no life-long sentences, no death penalty). Every system has its flaws, and since it is hardly easy to change them, we will have to live with those flaws, or actually do something about it, and my powers do not lie that way.
You forgot Japan there... but of course, Japan is (nominally) not a totalitarian regime. I guess the USA don't count as one, either.
But I fully agree with your paragraph concerning a person's unalienable right to live.
@Lecter, concerning the value of life:
You are right, the problem is not only hung up on valuing life, and I apologized to LNH for thinking too highly of my own opinion in that regard.
Valuing life is probably something we can all agree on. But as far as I understand it, you differentiate between the killing of innocents (in cold blood, or cruelly etc.) and the killing of people who have offended the law and, indeed, the 'moral compass' on which (most) people agree, to an extent where you demand retribution for crimes committed.
I do not. I think that it should not be a judiciary system's decision whether a person should die or not (again, excepting wars from this). I am, however, not ignorant of the flaws in the system I propose (no life-long sentences, no death penalty). Every system has its flaws, and since it is hardly easy to change them, we will have to live with those flaws, or actually do something about it, and my powers do not lie that way.
Without wading into the moral implications of the death penalty, there is one tidbit of misinformation that keeps being bounced around in this debate (largely by LNH, although I might have skimmed it in another poster's post:
The death penalty, as it is currently handled in the judiciary system of the United States, is a more expensive option for the taxpayer than life imprisonment.
You can certainly remove this fact from the argument if you're simply viewing this debate through a moral lens, but if one of your arguments is that it is a waste of money providing for the basic sustenance and shelter of lifer inmates, it isn't valid (at least not on average, in the US).
To be sure, if we were just to drag convicted criminals out behind the courthouse and end them there, then this wouldn't be the case. But the moral dilemma surrounding the wrongful conviction of innocent people makes lawyers a lot of money.
"Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present system ($137 million per year), the present system after implementation of the reforms ... ($232.7 million per year) ... and a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty ($11.5 million)."
––California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, July 1, 2008
The death penalty, as it is currently handled in the judiciary system of the United States, is a more expensive option for the taxpayer than life imprisonment.
You can certainly remove this fact from the argument if you're simply viewing this debate through a moral lens, but if one of your arguments is that it is a waste of money providing for the basic sustenance and shelter of lifer inmates, it isn't valid (at least not on average, in the US).
To be sure, if we were just to drag convicted criminals out behind the courthouse and end them there, then this wouldn't be the case. But the moral dilemma surrounding the wrongful conviction of innocent people makes lawyers a lot of money.
"Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present system ($137 million per year), the present system after implementation of the reforms ... ($232.7 million per year) ... and a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty ($11.5 million)."
––California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, July 1, 2008
as it is currently handled in the judiciary system of the United States
Key part of that statement, bearing in mind that how it is currently handled is by no means a method set in legal or Constitutional stone. Your point, Gav, is as good an argument for eliminating multiple appeals and streamlining procedural requirements as it is for preferring an alternative to the death penalty.
Regardless, I've never found cost concerns particularly relevant in this context. A couple hundred million dollars, in the judicial system of a state the size of CA, is tantamount to a rounding error and it's disingenuous at best to imply otherwise.
Key part of that statement, bearing in mind that how it is currently handled is by no means a method set in legal or Constitutional stone. Your point, Gav, is as good an argument for eliminating multiple appeals and streamlining procedural requirements as it is for preferring an alternative to the death penalty.
Regardless, I've never found cost concerns particularly relevant in this context. A couple hundred million dollars, in the judicial system of a state the size of CA, is tantamount to a rounding error and it's disingenuous at best to imply otherwise.
I have been well aware of it currently being more expensive in absolute terms to execute people than life imprisonment.
However, those numbers do not figure in the cost of the additional crimes, those people might otherwise commit. They also likely do not figure in the added cost of rehabilitation for those around them that CAN be rehabilitated. As Lecter rightly pointed out, keeping "lifers" is poisonous to a rehabilitative atmosphere.
However, those numbers do not figure in the cost of the additional crimes, those people might otherwise commit. They also likely do not figure in the added cost of rehabilitation for those around them that CAN be rehabilitated. As Lecter rightly pointed out, keeping "lifers" is poisonous to a rehabilitative atmosphere.
...is tantamount to a rounding error and it's disingenuous at best to imply otherwise.
It might be, if California was the only state in which this trend holds true. It's not; many, if not all, other states produce similar figures.
And LNH, I'm not sure I follow your train of thought. If the effects on rehabilitation are a problem, segment those deemed as such to a separate and isolated section of the facility. It's hardly different than a death row where someone can sit and rot for 20+ years before they're executed.
It might be, if California was the only state in which this trend holds true. It's not; many, if not all, other states produce similar figures.
And LNH, I'm not sure I follow your train of thought. If the effects on rehabilitation are a problem, segment those deemed as such to a separate and isolated section of the facility. It's hardly different than a death row where someone can sit and rot for 20+ years before they're executed.
Gav, my point isn't that due process is only expensive in California. It's that I'm happy to pay to see the smile drop from the face, and the light go out in the eyes, of those who choose to commit particularly heinous crimes. And that, when you look at total costs of the law enforcement system, even the costs of capital cases look far less dramatic.
Though I'm also happy to work towards making it cheaper by limiting the "due process" a convicted criminal is afforded and by mandating a non-extendable execution date, fixed at sentencing, within X months of sentencing.
Though I'm also happy to work towards making it cheaper by limiting the "due process" a convicted criminal is afforded and by mandating a non-extendable execution date, fixed at sentencing, within X months of sentencing.
Double... post?
And, do I understand you correctly that you enjoy watching people die? Or do you mean to say that you hope capital punishment to be a deterrent?
The first would have to be written in jest, for I do not think it is objectively enjoyable to watch a human being die. And the latter would just be callous.
Also, your last paragraph is interesting. So you'd want to shorten the time afforded to people to maybe prove their innocence?
Are you trolling this thread?
And, do I understand you correctly that you enjoy watching people die? Or do you mean to say that you hope capital punishment to be a deterrent?
The first would have to be written in jest, for I do not think it is objectively enjoyable to watch a human being die. And the latter would just be callous.
Also, your last paragraph is interesting. So you'd want to shorten the time afforded to people to maybe prove their innocence?
Are you trolling this thread?
Gav, my point isn't that due process is only expensive in California.
A point clear as mud. Regardless, my point isn't whether it's morally reprehensible to charge so much bloody money to execute a convicted criminal. My point is that it's an invalid argument to complain about the cost associated with imprisoning said convicts for life in the context of this debate. Unless of course you follow it up with some sort of resolution to this issue. To point, I'm pretty sure you're the only one who has, and you weren't even originally complaining about the cost.
Edit:
For the record, my actual position on the death penalty is this:
No problem with it under certain circumstance. I think that those who have willingly and knowingly (a point to be clear on, as this precludes the execution of certain mentally ill individuals) destroyed lives and families beyond any sort of recovery should lose the right to life. As a species we have no issue with exacting this same verdict upon not only other species, but other nation's civilians during war times, so why should we have a problem with this?
This comes with one caveat though: That the process employed to determine guilt is so in-fallible that not one single innocent person slips through the cracks. The act of executing an innocent person is such an utterly heinous act that, in my opinion, it creates such a level of hypocrisy that any moral right to perform such a task is instantly removed from the society who would seek to bear it.
A point clear as mud. Regardless, my point isn't whether it's morally reprehensible to charge so much bloody money to execute a convicted criminal. My point is that it's an invalid argument to complain about the cost associated with imprisoning said convicts for life in the context of this debate. Unless of course you follow it up with some sort of resolution to this issue. To point, I'm pretty sure you're the only one who has, and you weren't even originally complaining about the cost.
Edit:
For the record, my actual position on the death penalty is this:
No problem with it under certain circumstance. I think that those who have willingly and knowingly (a point to be clear on, as this precludes the execution of certain mentally ill individuals) destroyed lives and families beyond any sort of recovery should lose the right to life. As a species we have no issue with exacting this same verdict upon not only other species, but other nation's civilians during war times, so why should we have a problem with this?
This comes with one caveat though: That the process employed to determine guilt is so in-fallible that not one single innocent person slips through the cracks. The act of executing an innocent person is such an utterly heinous act that, in my opinion, it creates such a level of hypocrisy that any moral right to perform such a task is instantly removed from the society who would seek to bear it.
I'd actually rather spend more to execute these people anyway. Hell, I'd sell tickets to it and turn a damned profit out of the situation. Maybe make a game of it, some kind of guillotine with say 10 release buttons, only one at random working. The contestants press their buttons, and the winner gets some kind of prize.
A battle royale tv show would be more interesting...
Hello, 2nd Cen... 21st Century Rome.
A point clear as mud
Don't confuse your reading comprehension issues with my writing ability.
That the process employed to determine guilt is so in-fallible that not one single innocent person slips through the cracks
You don't really grasp the implications of the phrase "only human," do you? You cannot work with an omniscient definition of "innocent" in this context, and you cannot work with a procedure that seriously entertains every claim, no matter how specious, to innocence. You pick your system, and you define innocent by its outcome.
We will always, always make mistakes--when handing out death, when depriving people of 1, 5, 20, 50 years of their freedom, when expelling kids from university for academic dishonesty, and when exacting reciprocity for terrorist strikes. Doesn't mean we can, or should, stop acting.
And, do I understand you correctly that you enjoy watching people die? Or do you mean to say that you hope capital punishment to be a deterrent?
The first would have to be written in jest, for I do not think it is objectively enjoyable to watch a human being die. And the latter would just be callous.
You need to reread the part of the Inferno where Virgil chides Dante for feeling pity for those condemned souls who are suffering justly. I take no joy in the thought of a truly repentant criminal, regardless of how heinous his crime, being executed--based on what I read, "Tookie" Williams was likely someone I would have watched die with no pleasure at all. Which is not to say that I believe he should have had his sentence commuted, but recognizing that you've been malicious and genuinely regretting it changes my feelings about you as a person in a meaningful way.
However, I've seen far too many people, both up close and from study, who feel no remorse for their malicious acts--rather, they have enjoyed the feeling of power or whatever else they feel in doing just what they please, even if and maybe especially if it harmed innocent people. Such people choose to be, for lack of a better word, Evil. They smile during the elocution of their crimes, they feel no shame, and they would like to do it again if given the chance. Yes, I take pleasure in those deaths.
Also, your last paragraph is interesting. So you'd want to shorten the time afforded to people to maybe prove their innocence?
Yes. Most of the cost comes from the endless avenues of second-guessing a decision, with no temporal cut-off to consideration of these appeals. Because of the seriousness of the determination, each and every one, even if it's a carbon copy of the prior facts and arguments set forth, is gone over as if nobody had looked at the question before--this is simply silly.
I'm not advocating simply taking them out behind the courthouse and shooting them, but keeping them in a cycle of appeals for several decades in the hope that perhaps something that was overlooked or unavailable will materialize is no more reasonable than is no appeal at all.
Are you trolling this thread?
No, I'm quite serious; see above re: why I find the execution of people who have deliberately chosen to do horrible things for no good reason to be an affirmative good.
One random side note: I am amused to hear you assert that shooting people is not humane. Pray tell, why? Assuming you place them in the correct position, and fire a large caliber round into the brain stem at an upward angle, such that it passes through the centre of the brain, the result is perhaps the fastest and least painful death imaginable. Is it inhumane because of the mess?
Don't confuse your reading comprehension issues with my writing ability.
That the process employed to determine guilt is so in-fallible that not one single innocent person slips through the cracks
You don't really grasp the implications of the phrase "only human," do you? You cannot work with an omniscient definition of "innocent" in this context, and you cannot work with a procedure that seriously entertains every claim, no matter how specious, to innocence. You pick your system, and you define innocent by its outcome.
We will always, always make mistakes--when handing out death, when depriving people of 1, 5, 20, 50 years of their freedom, when expelling kids from university for academic dishonesty, and when exacting reciprocity for terrorist strikes. Doesn't mean we can, or should, stop acting.
And, do I understand you correctly that you enjoy watching people die? Or do you mean to say that you hope capital punishment to be a deterrent?
The first would have to be written in jest, for I do not think it is objectively enjoyable to watch a human being die. And the latter would just be callous.
You need to reread the part of the Inferno where Virgil chides Dante for feeling pity for those condemned souls who are suffering justly. I take no joy in the thought of a truly repentant criminal, regardless of how heinous his crime, being executed--based on what I read, "Tookie" Williams was likely someone I would have watched die with no pleasure at all. Which is not to say that I believe he should have had his sentence commuted, but recognizing that you've been malicious and genuinely regretting it changes my feelings about you as a person in a meaningful way.
However, I've seen far too many people, both up close and from study, who feel no remorse for their malicious acts--rather, they have enjoyed the feeling of power or whatever else they feel in doing just what they please, even if and maybe especially if it harmed innocent people. Such people choose to be, for lack of a better word, Evil. They smile during the elocution of their crimes, they feel no shame, and they would like to do it again if given the chance. Yes, I take pleasure in those deaths.
Also, your last paragraph is interesting. So you'd want to shorten the time afforded to people to maybe prove their innocence?
Yes. Most of the cost comes from the endless avenues of second-guessing a decision, with no temporal cut-off to consideration of these appeals. Because of the seriousness of the determination, each and every one, even if it's a carbon copy of the prior facts and arguments set forth, is gone over as if nobody had looked at the question before--this is simply silly.
I'm not advocating simply taking them out behind the courthouse and shooting them, but keeping them in a cycle of appeals for several decades in the hope that perhaps something that was overlooked or unavailable will materialize is no more reasonable than is no appeal at all.
Are you trolling this thread?
No, I'm quite serious; see above re: why I find the execution of people who have deliberately chosen to do horrible things for no good reason to be an affirmative good.
One random side note: I am amused to hear you assert that shooting people is not humane. Pray tell, why? Assuming you place them in the correct position, and fire a large caliber round into the brain stem at an upward angle, such that it passes through the centre of the brain, the result is perhaps the fastest and least painful death imaginable. Is it inhumane because of the mess?
Aye, if we decided to never act when their was a chance of mistake, I kinda doubt the human race would survive. You can't prevent all mistakes, accidents will happen, people will die. We will never live in a perfect world. The only thing we can do is try the best we can, not really a whole lot can be asked for beyond that.
"One random side note: I am amused to hear you assert that shooting people is not humane. Pray tell, why? Assuming you place them in the correct position, and fire a large caliber round into the brain stem at an upward angle, such that it passes through the centre of the brain, the result is perhaps the fastest and least painful death imaginable. Is it inhumane because of the mess?"
Might be inhumane to the janitor.
Might be inhumane to the janitor.
Lecter:
It is inhumane because of the circumstances, which usually render the method extreme. Pray do read up on the circumstances of execution by shooting, historically and contemporary, before writing unqualified comments, fraught with assumption.
I am not quite sure that you understand my comments relating to the global distribution and use of capital punishment (I repeatedly mentioned that in my posts).
And I would like to add that the entire history of capital punishment is what makes me oppose it so much. It (capital punishment throughout history) usually stems from a desire of vengeance and/or bloodlust (some of the more gory methods) in both the victims and the on-lookers, and generally a lack of civilization, as I see it.
It is inhumane because of the circumstances, which usually render the method extreme. Pray do read up on the circumstances of execution by shooting, historically and contemporary, before writing unqualified comments, fraught with assumption.
I am not quite sure that you understand my comments relating to the global distribution and use of capital punishment (I repeatedly mentioned that in my posts).
And I would like to add that the entire history of capital punishment is what makes me oppose it so much. It (capital punishment throughout history) usually stems from a desire of vengeance and/or bloodlust (some of the more gory methods) in both the victims and the on-lookers, and generally a lack of civilization, as I see it.
Tosh, there's not a single statement in your last post that isn't "squishy"--somewhat unlike you. "the circumstances"? "extreme"? the "history"? "generally a lack of civilization"? I'd get you a broader brush, if I could only find one.
Your prior statement said nothing about circumstances, which usually render the method extreme. If you meant something other than a blanket statement that "shooting people is not humane" say so; as it stands, your statement, and not mine, was an unqualified comment[].
I'm perfectly aware of the fact that execution by bullet(s) was and is often not conducted in a humane way. However, there's nothing I've seen that would be a more surely painless way of taking a person from living to dead than a well placed bullet. Maybe sudden and complete immersion in liquid nitrogen or helium, though I don't know for sure about the speed at which these substances would freeze human tissue, including the central nervous system, relative to the speed at which the nerve impulses (if any) travel from the affected areas to the brain.
Of course, people do not come with off-switches, and are apt to feel some discomfort at the transition. Abesent some intent to select a method for its painful effects, rather than in spite of them, this isn't a conversation that interests me at all. So long as the condemned isn't being deliberately tortured, their temporary discomfort during the execution isn't something I consider to rise to the level of "inhumane," or "cruel and unusual" here in the States.
Your prior statement said nothing about circumstances, which usually render the method extreme. If you meant something other than a blanket statement that "shooting people is not humane" say so; as it stands, your statement, and not mine, was an unqualified comment[].
I'm perfectly aware of the fact that execution by bullet(s) was and is often not conducted in a humane way. However, there's nothing I've seen that would be a more surely painless way of taking a person from living to dead than a well placed bullet. Maybe sudden and complete immersion in liquid nitrogen or helium, though I don't know for sure about the speed at which these substances would freeze human tissue, including the central nervous system, relative to the speed at which the nerve impulses (if any) travel from the affected areas to the brain.
Of course, people do not come with off-switches, and are apt to feel some discomfort at the transition. Abesent some intent to select a method for its painful effects, rather than in spite of them, this isn't a conversation that interests me at all. So long as the condemned isn't being deliberately tortured, their temporary discomfort during the execution isn't something I consider to rise to the level of "inhumane," or "cruel and unusual" here in the States.