zapatos Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 So if we've now established that capital punishment is not necessarily the maximum punishment, then we need to adjust what "maximum punishment for maximum crime" entails. Would you find putting the afore described punishment, or a potentially harsher one if such could be devised, on the table for people convicted of a "maximum crime" to be acceptable? No, your described punishment would not be acceptable to me. As I stated earlier one of my objections to the death penalty is the cruelty of the execution process. So increasing/modified cruelty would not be acceptable to me. However, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to something harsher than the death penalty, such as adding in the forfeiture of property from the criminal's estate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 No, your described punishment would not be acceptable to me. As I stated earlier one of my objections to the death penalty is the cruelty of the execution process. So increasing/modified cruelty would not be acceptable to me. However, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to something harsher than the death penalty, such as adding in the forfeiture of property from the criminal's estate. Can we establish a definition of cruelty for the sake of the discussion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapatos Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I propose "callous indifference to or pleasure in causing pain and suffering". Does that work for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 What is it about 'preciousness' that makes life untouchable? Is it a spiritual thing? Is there some sort of objective quality you can assign to it? Ah, it's the adjective then. Substitute "valuable" or "irreplaceable" for "precious". I can't replace a human life taken. From what I've observed, this is all we get. Death happens normally, but I think we should do everything in our power to keep from causing it prematurely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I propose "callous indifference to or pleasure in causing pain and suffering". Does that work for you? I don't mean to quibble over semantics, but that defines cruelty as a quality of the person or persons inflicting a punishment, rather than being a feature of the punishment itself. By that definition, it would be impossible for any punishment to be cruel as long as it was carried out by someone who felt bad about doing it. I was looking more for some parameter that defines what about a punishment makes it cruel or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapatos Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I can't replace a human life taken. From what I've observed, this is all we get. Death happens normally, but I think we should do everything in our power to keep from causing it prematurely. Yes, but why should we do everything in our power to keep from causing it prematurely? We certainly don't seem to mind degrading a human life. We take people away from their families, lock them in dark rooms, and keep them confined for decades at a time in relatively harsh conditions. We degrade human life significantly. Why stop prior to the degradation being complete? Why do we have the right to degrade human life, but we cannot cross the line where life ends? Why don't we have the right to cross that line? I don't mean to quibble over semantics, but that defines cruelty as a quality of the person or persons inflicting a punishment, rather than being a feature of the punishment itself. By that definition, it would be impossible for any punishment to be cruel as long as it was carried out by someone who felt bad about doing it. I was looking more for some parameter that defines what about a punishment makes it cruel or not. So propose something. I pulled my definition of 'cruelty' off the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 (edited) So propose something. I pulled my definition of 'cruelty' off the internet.Well, that's my problem, actually. I could define quite a lot about the way the justice system presently works as being cruel. The way that it not only does not provide much in the way of resources for rehabilitation but often actively strips away opportunities for such, essentially turning one mistake into a lifelong source of punishment is rather cruel. Solitary confinement is cruel. Forcing someone to sit on death row awaiting their inevitable execution is cruel. Continuously asking for postponements on court dates due to lack of preparation because you are in an understaffed district so that someone can sit in detention for years waiting for a "speedy trial" to start without ever having been convicted of anything is cruel. Heck, you could make a case that even just locking someone up in a cell, surrounded by criminals with inadequate supervision of social interactions is cruel. Cruelty is the point at which we find the discomfort inflicted upon another person to no longer be tolerable. That threshold is going to vary between people, sometimes considerably. The only way to ensure that a given punishment is impossible to be interpreted as cruel is if it does no harm to the person being punished, but inflicting harm in response to an undesirable action is pretty much the bare definition of punishment. So we draw a line and say "the harm inflicted on this side of the line is acceptable" and "the harm inflicted beyond this point is cruel." Some people draw the line at torture. Others at execution. Others still at even lower thresholds. They are all essentially arbitrary lines. I have no problem with you asking why confinement is on the table but execution is not. That is an entirely fair question. By the same token, however, you can ask either "If execution is on the table, why isn't torture?" or, in the other direction, "why is confinement on the table?" And these questions are just as valid. If you can answer why one is acceptable to you but not another, you can answer your own question: Capital punishment is off the table for some people because they draw the line in a different place than you do. Edited January 21, 2015 by Delta1212 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapatos Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Capital punishment is off the table for some people because they draw the line in a different place than you do. Yes, that seems rather obvious. But it in no way addresses my question as to 'why they draw the line at the death penalty'. I explained that I would be willing to draw the line where the death penalty would be allowed if we could address issues such as the cruelty of being on death row. Others oppose the death penalty due to the fact that mistakes can be made. Some people though draw the line at the death penalty but don't seem to be able to articulate why other than saying because 'we shouldn't take a life'. It is those people I am trying to understand. Have someone articulate all the reasons they oppose the death penalty, then propose scenarios where all of those reasons for opposition are eliminated. The people who still oppose the death penalty, even though all their concerns have been addressed, are the ones I'm interested in. No one ever says "I am okay with a 20 year prison sentence but not a 21 year prison sentence". But people will say they are okay with locking up an 18 year old and throwing away the key, but not a quiet, painless death after sentencing. What is going on in people's minds that they cannot cross that barrier? People die every day. They die because people want to buy a watch instead of feeding the poor guy on the street. They die because we send people to war. Even the guy we decided it was not right to execute is going to die. So why do some people feel we cannot hurry that process along, no matter the horrors that person has inflicted on the human race? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Yes, but why should we do everything in our power to keep from causing it prematurely? We certainly don't seem to mind degrading a human life. We take people away from their families, lock them in dark rooms, and keep them confined for decades at a time in relatively harsh conditions. We degrade human life significantly. Why stop prior to the degradation being complete? Why do we have the right to degrade human life, but we cannot cross the line where life ends? Why don't we have the right to cross that line? Some people though draw the line at the death penalty but don't seem to be able to articulate why other than saying because 'we shouldn't take a life'. It is those people I am trying to understand. Have someone articulate all the reasons they oppose the death penalty, then propose scenarios where all of those reasons for opposition are eliminated. The people who still oppose the death penalty, even though all their concerns have been addressed, are the ones I'm interested in. No one ever says "I am okay with a 20 year prison sentence but not a 21 year prison sentence". But people will say they are okay with locking up an 18 year old and throwing away the key, but not a quiet, painless death after sentencing. What is going on in people's minds that they cannot cross that barrier? People die every day. They die because people want to buy a watch instead of feeding the poor guy on the street. They die because we send people to war. Even the guy we decided it was not right to execute is going to die. So why do some people feel we cannot hurry that process along, no matter the horrors that person has inflicted on the human race? Life is the ticket to get in. You don't get to participate if someone takes your ticket away. It's the prerequisite for anything meaningful. It should be important not to end it if it can be helped. I think any comparisons to war are misplaced. Soldiers make a choice to enlist and put themselves in harm's way, and what we're talking about is punishment, pure and simple. Punishment from the People, administered through the State. I think the DP is like the People sweeping their problems under the rug, it's going to keep them from finding a better solution because, hey, the place looks nicer without all those criminals. If we're to have any hope of changing our messed up penal system, I think respect for life should be promoted, so no killing people for killing people. Top-down approach, see if you can convert all murders to assaults. Sure, we all die, but I don't know anyone who wants to die at another person's hands. I could start another thread asking people how they'd like to die, and see how many people would like to be murdered. So that's where I stand. Degrading a life is a bad thing, but you have to have life for anything else to matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Yes, that seems rather obvious. But it in no way addresses my question as to 'why they draw the line at the death penalty'. I explained that I would be willing to draw the line where the death penalty would be allowed if we could address issues such as the cruelty of being on death row. Others oppose the death penalty due to the fact that mistakes can be made. Some people though draw the line at the death penalty but don't seem to be able to articulate why other than saying because 'we shouldn't take a life'. It is those people I am trying to understand. Have someone articulate all the reasons they oppose the death penalty, then propose scenarios where all of those reasons for opposition are eliminated. The people who still oppose the death penalty, even though all their concerns have been addressed, are the ones I'm interested in. No one ever says "I am okay with a 20 year prison sentence but not a 21 year prison sentence". But people will say they are okay with locking up an 18 year old and throwing away the key, but not a quiet, painless death after sentencing. What is going on in people's minds that they cannot cross that barrier? People die every day. They die because people want to buy a watch instead of feeding the poor guy on the street. They die because we send people to war. Even the guy we decided it was not right to execute is going to die. So why do some people feel we cannot hurry that process along, no matter the horrors that person has inflicted on the human race? I hope this doesn't come across as flippant, but why shouldn't we amputate all of a violent criminal's limbs? I know you've said that would be cruel, but heartening back to your point about why people draw a line at the death penalty, why do you draw a line there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapatos Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 It's cruel and gratuitous. Maybe other reasons as well but those quickly comes to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 It's cruel and gratuitous. Maybe other reasons as well but those quickly comes to mind. Ok, but some people think the death penalty is cruel and gratuitous. You are trying to understand why people who think that but have trouble articulating why think that way. So in the same vein, I'm asking if you can articulate why this is cruel and gratuitous while capital punishment is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapatos Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Ok, but some people think the death penalty is cruel and gratuitous. You are trying to understand why people who think that but have trouble articulating why think that way. Since they are having trouble articulating what they think, how could you possibly know they think it is cruel and gratuitous? So in the same vein, I'm asking if you can articulate why this is cruel and gratuitous while capital punishment is not. I already told you what I thought cruelty was but you didn't accept my answer. Since I believe the death penalty as we practice it is cruel, I would not be a good person to explain why it is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfmotat Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 (edited) I have no moral objection to the death penalty, but I have a practical objection to it -- too many innocents are wrongfully convicted for me to conceivably support such a policy. There's always some room for error, which is unacceptable in matters like these. Edited January 22, 2015 by elfmotat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 I have no moral objection to the death penalty, but I have a practical objection to it -- too many innocents are wrongfully convicted for me to conceivably support such a policy. There's always some room for error, which is unacceptable in matters like these. What if they are filmed doing it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfmotat Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 What if they are filmed doing it? So then we get into whether or not exceptions should be made and under what circumstances. For example, let's say a guy robs a bank and kills a security guard in the process. There is video evidence of the crime being committed, including high-resolution face-shots. Seems open and shut. But I can imagine scenarios where the guy may be innocent: maybe the video was doctored to make it look like he did it, or maybe someone else coerced him into robbing the bank by threatening his family, etc. The problem with the DP is that it's a permanent punishment, so there is no room for error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 (edited) So then we get into whether or not exceptions should be made and under what circumstances. For example, let's say a guy robs a bank and kills a security guard in the process. There is video evidence of the crime being committed, including high-resolution face-shots. Seems open and shut. But I can imagine scenarios where the guy may be innocent: maybe the video was doctored to make it look like he did it, or maybe someone else coerced him into robbing the bank by threatening his family, etc. The problem with the DP is that it's a permanent punishment, so there is no room for error. Yes there is that, but I was thinking of the Islamic State videos which are about as unequivocal as it gets. Edited January 22, 2015 by StringJunky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfmotat Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Yes there is that, but I was thinking of the Islamic State videos which are about as unequivocal as it gets. My point was, should we write in an exception to the law in the case of video evidence? My conclusion being no, that's still not enough in every circumstance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overtone Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 (edited) And 'no innocents' being executed would certainly greatly reduce the number of executions possible although I'm not sure it would eliminate them altogether (e.g. I don't know all the details of the case and thus if this example would apply, but Timothy McVeigh clearly seems to have been guilty including his own admission and desire to be executed). But those are practical matters and kind of get away from the question I was raising. I agree that all of these factors should be considered when deciding whether or not to execute people. But I think all of these factors should also be considered when deciding whether or not in incarcerate someone for 20 years, or to fine them $10,000, or to impose any other punishment on them. What I don't understand is the apparent position of some that regardless of how well we can address cost, risk, abuse of power, or any other factor, that the death penalty is still an option that is verboten. Timothy McVeigh is an excellent example of why governments should never be allowed to execute their citizens. The government buried all of its mistakes, favoritism, associations with McVeigh's crowd, screwups in anti-terrorism operations, and legitimate complaints by McVeigh, It also buried our best chance of better and more complete intelligence about McVeigh's associates and supporters - something we have kind of missed, a couple of times since, no? So McVeigh and the government each got what they wanted. We were denied any chance of what we needed. That is about the best case possible in favor of capital punishment - and it's still a bad idea. Edited January 22, 2015 by overtone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 My point was, should we write in an exception to the law in the case of video evidence? My conclusion being no, that's still not enough in every circumstance. In tandem with corroborating evidence, it falls within 'beyond reasonable doubt' imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfmotat Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 In tandem with corroborating evidence, it falls within 'beyond reasonable doubt' imo. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is the standard in the US, and innocents are still put on death row. It's not a good enough standard by which to be executing people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Lots of opinions. Convoluted issue. Makes me long for the simple days when I didn't stray from the Physics forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnocrat Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 I am for the death penalty. It is administered every day throughout the world by law enforcement , sometimes to the innocent. So why the enormous fuss over a few wicked criminals who have no respect for life. I suspect Christianity is at the bottom of the reason in western nations: repentance is always possible .Robert Hare who worked many years with criminals believes 1% of the American population are psychopaths. Could we not well do without them ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 I suspect Christianity is at the bottom of the reason in western nations: repentance is always possible .Robert Hare who worked many years with criminals believes 1% of the American population are psychopaths. Could we not well do without them ? Can we do without you when the Christians/Corporations/Politicians decide to extend the definition of "psychopath" to cover more of the people they don't like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 (edited) So meaning we should get rid of a significant part of the higher echelons of corporate organizations... (as they are enriched with people with psychopathic tendencies)? Using emotive labels and trying to make legislature based on that is a dangerous thing indeed. Edited January 29, 2015 by CharonY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now