I've decided to change my mind on a political subject that I used to be immoveable on. I no longer agree with the death penalty, or, I no longer feel that it's morally correct, or useful to kill someone who has gruesomely murdered another.
I do feel it's correct for those people to be moved into special maximum security prisons in Alaska and forced to spend their days out performing hard labor for 15-18 hours a day. I think these types of people need to spend their days thinking about their crimes and the effect it's had on their lives and on the lives they effected through their gruesome crimes.
And when they die, then his/her eternal existence is in God's hands.
The sad thing is that this scenario doesn't exist. So while I don't support the death penalty per se, I'm not going to picket executions either.
Posted by Julie (Member # 5580) on :
Any reason for the sudden change of heart?
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
Strangely enough.. A hatrack thread from 1-2 years ago, some thought and ... um.. Bill O'Reilly.
Posted by Julie (Member # 5580) on :
I see. I'm still kind of on the fence over this issue.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
I could be comfortable with replacing the death penalty with some cruel and unusual punishment. But, as you say, that ain't happening. So I'm pretty comfortable with the death penalty as well.
Posted by Julie (Member # 5580) on :
The reason I'm not completely comfortable with the death penalty is because whenever we have discussions about it in school people are so eager to say, "He kills someone he needs to die," without even considering what the circumstances are. We talk about what if the person was brainwashed to think that what they were doing was the right thing to do, and all people can say is, "They should still have known that killing is wrong." Keep in mind I'm talking about high school students, but still. They act as though it doesn't even require any thought, no discussion, just kill the person. It just makes me uneasy that if these are the people who will someday be in charge of making those decisions, innocent people will be put to death because the trials weren't done carefully and the judge was too quick to assign a death penalty.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
While I think there are times when it is acceptable to execute someone, I am strongly against the current use of the death penalty. There have been simply far too many cases of people being executed whom we now know are innocent. I've never been able to understand how our nation's conscience has been able to accomodate that.
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
That's always been the sticky point for me, fugu. I think in cases where there is some doubt, the death penalty should be thrown out altogether. But how do you know?
Posted by Julie (Member # 5580) on :
You only know if someone says, "It was me. No one is forcing me to say it's me. This is how and why I did it."
...But that doesn't happen very often.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Exactly. Which is why the death penalty should be abolished except for situations with lots of very clear video tape and lots of witnesses.
And I'd actually settle for it being abolished altogether, I'm not particularly set on seeing anyone die.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Fugu, the reason I'm okay with it is that I believe mistakes are inevitable. I don't like it when innocent people die, not at all, but I believe that more innocent people die at the hands of released or escaped murderers than due to the errors of the courts. See, I feel just as responsible for the former as the latter; we had the fella in our hands and we let him get away . How can people who oppose the death penalty live with that?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Who said anything about releasing them? Of course mistakes happen, but we can at least stop them from being permanent, and only releasing people when we can find a reasonable doubt. Dead people are dead even if we find absolute proof they were innocent (which happens disturbingly regularly).
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't believe in the death penalty. It's too easy, too simple and doesn't really deter crime. Even before I saw and read Dead Man Walking I didn't believe in it. It's interesting how when they use whatevery means of killing a person, whether it's shooting them, gas, electricity or lethal injection which is supposed to be so compassionate but really it only seems that way they'll have two buttons that are pressed at the same time so that the people pressing the button can blame the other person for the death. Killing is always wrong... no matter what. Even in self defence. Which is an extreme way of looking at things.
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
I guess the biggest point I was trying to make is that those who kill deserve a fate worse than death, which is not offered right now.
If someone kills my daughter, I don't want him to die, but I want him to remember every day that his choices caused his life to suck. I want him digging holes, busting up rocks, and falling into his bed in exhaustion every night. I want him to wish he never, ever did it.
The death penalty doesn't do this right now. If anything, it can make him a martyr who dies by falling asleep.
Timothy McVeigh should be confined to a 12 by 12 cell and required to work in extreme conditions for 15 to 18 hours a day, no last meals, no interviews with Dan Rather. Just living out the rest of his life in obscurity where he'll never get out and when he dies of old age, he's nothing more than a brief on an inside news page.
This is how I believe it should be. It shouldn't be cruel and unusual. It should be strict and punishing.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I agree with Pat. o_O
Posted by Shlomo (Member # 1912) on :
All criminal penalties should be centered on rehabilitation and not revenge.
I have few issues with making murders lives forfeit to the state and making them do difficult community service and other projects for eighteen hours a day...I have a problem with inflicting pain simply for the purpose of inflicting pain.
So I agree with Pat, for the most part.
I disagree with Icarus, who seems to wish only for the most suffering possible for murderers.
I also disagree with Maccabeus, who has already made up his mind in favor of execution and now appears to be fumbling around for a validation of his foregone conclusion.
...that's my take, at any rate.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Shlomo, you're right that my mind is pretty much made up; I don't know that it's appropriate to describe me as "fumbling around". I suppose it's possible that my justification is more after-the-fact than I realize; the death penalty is extremely intuitive to me.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
See, and if somebody killed Pat's daughters I would want them to die, before they killed Shlomo's daughters, and Mack's daughters, and my own two darling daughters for that matter.
There really are things people can do that can make them give up their rights. Their rights to liberty (if they rob or injur they should be locked up), their right to privacy (if they molest a child all thier neighbors should be told they are a child molester forever) and even their right to life (if they are guilty of murder or even many cases of rape).
This isn't a matter of revenge. This is a matter of somebody having demonstrated they're willing to abuse their freedoms. The way a free country works is we give everybody freedoms from the day they're born, and then take them away from them as they prove they can't handle that freedom. That means some people go their whole lives with all of their freedoms, and it means others get all of their freedoms taken away at a very early age.
As for the factor of killed innocents--that's a circular arguement that can be enticing, but really can't be taken too far. My wife's doctor misdiagnosed her pretty badly once. Their incorrect treatment ended up in her having to have open heart surgery.
Those doctors were ignorant, and I will hate them forever.
But that doesn't mean that nobody should ever get the treatment they perscribed her. There are still cases where that treatment is correct and appropriate.
What needs to be fixed isn't the treatment so much as their criterea for making their diagnosis.
So it is with the death penalty. If it's a good idea, it's a good idea. If you're afraid it will be used on innocents, then we need to fix the system that decides guilt or innocence. That does not change the inherent virtues of the death penalty.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
And since our legal system is screwed up, and no one wants to fix it, I guess that pretty much throws the death penalty right out the window for a while, eh?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
To me rapists and child molesters are worse than murderers, yet it seems like they get less time than drug dealers. They are the ones that should be thrown in jail forever and stripped of all of their rights. An example: this case here of a man who killed a 12 year old and her mother after raping the mother. He should have never been allowed to see the light of day.
Posted by PaladinVirtue (Member # 6144) on :
ok, I have read the all the earlier posts on this topic and I notice that no one mentions the suposed deterent factor which is suposed to be caused by the existence of the death penalty. Thoughts on this?
I mean there are plenty of people that I'd like to kill (usually on mondays)...but aside from the fact that it is just wrong..there is the reality that I would be caught and punished, possibly with my life.
Joking aside though: Aside from those of us who obey laws for the sake of trying to do right, don't the consequences keep us in line?
Lets say for a moment that they instituted the death penalty for speeding excessivly, or even better, DUI...I can guarentee that we all would repect the law more strickly. Why should it not be the same for murder? Though there are no numbers to measure this, because no one counts the number of murders NOT commited by the death penatly.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
I don't think it was fair to characterize Maccabeus as fumbling. It may not be a sentiment you agree with, but it seemed pretty clearly set out to me.
-o-
I was being somewhat facetious. What Pat described would be considered cruel and unusual punishment if someone were to try and implement it today, and that's what I meant. I know teachers who have taught in prisons, and it is actually quite true that prisoners get resources that the rest of us don't. For instance, each of her students had a laptop. My students don't have laptops. How many adults can't afford a laptop? How many families can't afford cable TV? (And yes, I am aware that they use cable TV as a riot deterrent, not because they love criminals.) So when I said "cruel and unusual," what I meant was take away some of the luxuries they currently enjoy.
Your post makes me face the fact that I am not morally comfortable with, say, state sponsored torturing of these criminals every day, just for the heck of it.
Your post, though, puts me more firmly in the position of favoring capital punishment. For the worst murderers and torturers in society, I am not interested in rehabilitation, or in vengeance. I simply want them destroyed, like one would destroy a rabid dog.
I would be comfortable with what Pat describes, as a compromise, but that seems even less likely to happen these days.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
Welcome, PV!
I think studies have shown it is not an effective deterrant. I guess the type of people who murder either do it in moments of irrational passion, or believe they cannot be caught, or are so dysfunctional on some level that it really doesn't affect them that way. Statistically, though, I'm pretty sure I've read that states without capital punishment do not have a higher murder rate than states with it.
-o-
Sure, Storm. I'm not opposed to revamping the system to get it right, or to having a moratorium on executions while we do this. It's not like I'm a Republican! Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
So are you going to change your name, Trogdor, to reflect your new, sensitive side?
Trogdor the Scuffs-His-Feet-On-The-Carpet-And-Shocks-Younator, maybe? Trogdor the Wifflebatter? Trogdor the First-Degree-Burninator?
Trogdor the Morning-Breathinator? (meedley, meedley, meeeeee....and the Trogdor comes right at daaaaaaaaawwwwn!)
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I also strongly suspect the deterrent factor is low -- many murders are either crimes of passion, or crimes by sociopaths, neither of which are often swayed by reasoned self interest.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
This is what I've always suspected. Most premeditated murderers don't think they'll get caught and they don't care if they are caught. The Death Penalty is a waste of resources and money. You keep these guys in prison for years, they make appeals a lot, they drain resources keeping these people alive just to kill them. Preventing crime somehow would be better, but difficult. What happens to a criminal that makes them go out and commit crimes in the first place?
Posted by PaladinVirtue (Member # 6144) on :
Two Points: First: If the deterent factor is low...isn't it still worth something? I mean if it prevents the murder of innocents in even one case, then isn't the death penalty a worthy method of deterence. I agree with your point about crimes of passion, but don't we all feel like doing some wrong things in the heat of passion? And don't the consequences still keep us in check? I could scream at my girlfriend when she does something stupid, but I don't because i don't want to face the consequences. (most likly at least a week of no fun) Logic is what we use to temper our passions and determine actions. And the logic of "I will die if i do this" keeps us from indulging in many passions. Unsafe sex, jumping off cliffs to feel a rush, eating nothing but pure chocolate for a week straight...umm chocolate... And for those of us who drive, what might be the ultimate passionate respponce...ramming the jerk-off that just cuts us off becasue they can't read that they are suposed to MERGE BEFORE the point where they run out of road!!!!
Where was I? oh yes...
Second: From an economic standpoint...why should the rest of us pay for these criminal indeffinent incarseration (clearly I have no idea how to spell ) But really...is it fair for me to pay for their lives when they took someone elses? What can they offer to society othr than debt?
Thanks for the welcome Icarus..A good friend of mine told me about y'all and I had to come see for myself...very nice group thus far Posted by PaladinVirtue (Member # 6144) on :
Syn, How is it MORE of a waste of resources to keep them until they are terminated than to keep the for the rest of their natural lives? At least with capital punishment there is an en in sight...
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
I don't think the only alternatives need to be our current system of interminable legal maneuvering, where executing a criminal actually does cost more than keeping one in prison for life, or killing people without due process, and killing lots more innocents in the process. In this day and age, it must be possible to create a more effective proccess (which may include a more stringent burden of proof when seeking capital punishment). Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I have no problem with the death penalty as long as only the deserving die.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I'm curious what desert has to do with what happens to us prior to death and judgement, Scott. On your worldview it seems like murderers and rapists will get what they deserve in the end no matter what. Why worry about it here on earth?
Posted by PaladinVirtue (Member # 6144) on :
I can see your point Icarus. And though it may appear that I am devout to the stance I am taking, in truth I am not all for or all against capital punishment as it exists now. There are too many contradictions. Such as the alcohol swab that they use on the condemned before lethal injection. The questions I am raising are those that i am echoing from other discussions about this topic. Iam playing devils advocate to a degree.
Obviously the untimate goal in all of this discussion is the prevention of innocent death. And though I do think that reports of innocents being put to death in the country are exagerated, I think it might happen, and if that is the case then that is a travesty and steps shold be taken to prevent such occurences. But before we wholly reject our legal system... Lets look at the numbers as compared to other alternatives and I think that we will all agree that comparitvly our system is much better than most. I mean at least we are concerned with peoples rights.
As for the cost issue...i can't see how providing for someones life can cost more than terminating them. Unless we are talking about legal fees, which is another issue...and may require some further inspection and deflation. Maybe the way to fix the cost issue is to lessen the nature of this image of humane capital punishment? How much does a bullet cost?
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
What I find very interesting is the current administration's take on the death penalty. George Bush once gave a lecture at Texas A & M (gasp, yes the man is not a total idiot ) about the death penalty. He talked a lot about Hobbes and the state of nature, and the need for absolute rule of law.
What I find utterly ironic is that Hobbes, the essence of absolute rule by the state to preserve order, has one exception where he felt rebellion was legitimate:
when the state tries to kill you.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I've had a change of heart about this same issue, and surprisingly so has my husband. Dyed in the wool conservative that he is, it really surprised me when he said he'd changed his mind on the death penalty.
My reasons from going from a death penalty supporter to a non-supporter are:
My desire to live as a committed Christian. One of my core beliefs is redemption, and the sanctity of life. The murderer on death row right now has the same right to redemption as I do, and his status as a sinner is exactly the same as mine.
the injustice of the current system, and the revelations that DNA testing has caused. Too many innocent people on death row have been set free - how many were executed before DNA testing was available? How many innocent people are on death row in cases where DNA cannot exonerate them?
The ridiculous process that a death penalty case has turned into - it costs so much money and so much of the court's time, and it gives the inmate a national forum and a chance at martyrdom status. I'd rather they just sit in a cell and people forget about them than have them turned into trading card subjects.
Like Pat, I'd rather see hard labor as a an option, and it angers me to see prisoners getting privileges that many citizens don't have. I think we are too easy on many criminals - but that's an issue separate from the death penalty. the death penalty's existence doesn't mollify my feelings on that score.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
Destineer, I think that's a better question for Pat than for Scott. Scott has merely said he's in favor of the death penalty as long as innocents don't die. Pat is the one who has said this is too easy, and that he wants murderers to have a lousy life.
Paladin, don't mistake me. I am in favor of the death penalty. It's just that years of looking at this issue have made me aware of all the common statistics and arguments used against capital punishment. (When I was an English teacher, I can't tell you how many Persuasive Essays on capital punishment I read!)
Currently, it does cost more to kill one person than to keep him in prison for life. These costs include the states legal costs during the interminable appeals process (bear in mind that the state actually bears the cost of both the prosecution and the court, while the defense must only pay for it's own lawyers. Death Row inmates are also typically kept in isolation (and in maximum security) while awaiting death, and so their incarceration costs more than that of other inmates.
I would agree that reform seems to be in order, but I'm still, in principal, in favor of the death penalty itself.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
The death penalty is unnecessary.
The recidivist murderers are the ones who would not have gotten the death penalty in the first place (not all convicted murders are sentenced to death, or even life with or without parole). So regardless of the recidivism rate (speaking of which, murderers have one of the lowest rates of recidivism)
As for deterrence I think Icarus has covered why murderers are largely, if not completely, immune to it. People who are skeptical of this, I think downplay or don't realize that the average human being is not usually rational when under extreme pressures, internally or externally. The 7/11 robber who puts a couple bullets in the cashier clerk wasn't weighing odds, they were nervous, scared, and thought they saw the clerk reach under the counter for something...
But seriously, what sort of society are we, even if we create a death penalty system that is air tight? It seems to me that at that point, we have conceded some of our species' better qualities/emotions. It says, "We've given up." I know this may sound hollow from a lapsed liberal Christian, but I feel that if God has never given up on us, giving us his only Son, then within our society we should do EVERYTHING we can not to give up on our fellow man.
We can change the laws to lock them away forever (short of exoneration), we can make them do work that will provide our society a little good from their lives. If they are criminally insane, we can study them, and understand better the warning signs.
But I'm a penal rehabilitationist.
-Bok
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
Bok, I think your personal medical issues are not really relevant here. Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Oh, shoot! Wrong thread....
*Goes looking for a "Hey CT!" thread*
-Bok
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
*boggles at what a penal rehabilitationist's job entails*
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
The whole DNA testing situation strikes me as being...off somehow. As a biologist, I know that any test can give incorrect results, and so far as I am aware the people who are being freed were by no means sentenced frivolously by incompetent judges and juries. There was a strong, highly substantial case against them or they would not have been sentenced to death.
I have the strange feeling that one of these days someone will be caught in the act by the police, under the eye of a dozen video cameras, and the DNA tests will say it wasn't him. Which will we believe then?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
That obviously, he was framed. Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
I agree that DNA tests are important evidence, by the way. I would never say they should be simply ignored. But no single piece of evidence can be totally conclusive. Chemical tests can fail due to minor lab errors. They can fail due to sloppy testers. They can fail due to contamination at the site. And they can even fail due to corruption or activism on the part of the scientists doing the test. A DNA test is strong evidence. But if large amounts of other evidence contradict it, it can still be set aside.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Anybody who tells you the death penalty is never a deterrant is a liar. Anybody who tells you its always a deterrent is a liar. Obviously, there are people in this world who would kill if the only penalty was a firm talking to from a penal rehabilitationist. If there were no penalty, even more people would kill. (Anybody ever read Robert Sheckley's "The Monsters"?)
And, just like some kids have unprotected sex even though they know the consequences, some people still kill.
So arguing whether or not its a deterrant is as pointless as arguing whether its better to pass or run on a football play. There are going to be situations where it could go either way.
The soul arguement involved in the death penalty, the way I see it, is whether or not that killer still has the right to life. If he doesn't, then we need to kill him. If he does, then we let him live, no matter how much we may think his death may deter other murderers.
As for Christianity, well, the book of Romans argues for the death penalty for a bunch of sins that carry right on down into things not a single person would feel worthy of that in this day and age. And while the bible does teach that you and I need to forgive one another, it does not teach that somehow being forgiven by Christians means not having to face the consequences of your actions.
I'm not talking about giving the death penalty to somebody who shot a man who was breaking into his house. I'm not even neccesarily talking about giving the death penalty to a man who shot the man he found in bed with his wife.
But I am absolutely, positively talking about giving it to the man who's proven he's willing to kill or rape, over and over, and has shown, through his blatant disregard for the humanity in others, that he's lost the humanity in himself.
You and me got the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. He's given up his claim on all three.
[ January 25, 2004, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: docmagik ]
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
A scattershot of thoughts about the death penalty:
Certainly, people do things that are so awful that they deserve to die for them. I don't think it logically follows that society is obliged to kill them.
Anyway, I don't honestly see that killing someone is the worst punishment they can get. Maybe they go through more fear by sitting in jail for a few years during all the appeals and then being killed. But, I honestly think it would be much worse to be forced to sit in jail for maybe as long as fifty or sixty or seventy years (in the case of someone who is convicted at a very young age and given life without) day in and day out and know that they are never, ever going to get out.
Besides, as I think I've probably said here before, and as glib and trite as it is, it just does not make sense to me to prove it is wrong to kill by killing.
I also believe, fervently, that if life is sacred it is life itself that makes it sacred, not what happens to be done with that life. That's why I admire the consistency of the Catholic Church's stand that both abortion and the death penalty are wrong.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I don't know that I can give an opinion on this.
1) Because my father was murdered, many people assume I'm FOR the death penalty.
2) because I'm a Christian, many people assume I'm AGAINST the death penalty.
It's a hard call for many reasons -- I'm just going to watch your debate.
However, I cringe when I know my taxdollars are paying for the $26,000 per year it costs to keep a murderer in prison; pay for his food, upkeep, medical costs, any schooling he wants, etc. When sometimes I don't even have funds to feed my own kids.
But I also know how enormous is the cost of prosecuting a death penalty case. (also our taxdollars).
And I know that currently, life in prison is NOT life in prison.
There are a lot of things about the system that needs to change.
Farmgirl
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
quote:That's why I admire the consistency of the Catholic Church's stand that both abortion and the death penalty are wrong.
I think that's the ONE thing in the catholic theology that's consistent. Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
doc, that's true, only if there weren't similar punishments available. It's proven that life (with or without parole) is statistically equivalent to the death penalty. So I don't see the point in making many murders cost two lives, no matter how despicable one of them may have been.
So even if it is a deterrent in certain cases (which I'm sure it is, I guess I'll just preface any point with "statistically speaking" from now on), it at best deters some that life imprisonment won't, while at the same time failing to deter others that life imprisonment does deter. All at less cost of life per murder.
-Bok
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
While I am a very strong supporter of the death penalty I have to advocate that the detterence factor is thrown out. This is so simply because deterence is not the purpose. People who commit capital crimes do not contemplate the punishment. Period. This comes from a very credible source, my mother. She would know because she is one of about 4 people who must sign off on the state seeking the death penalty for every case in Miami-Dade County.
Shlomo brought up the idea of rehabilitation which is a nice lofty idealistic goal but is simply absurd. Why would you want to rehabilitate someone who is never going to be put into an environment where rehabilitation is an issue. Unless of course Shlomo is advocating that we release people like Timothy McVeigh or Saddam Hussein once they are "rehabilitated".
The unfortunate issue of wrongfully executed indivuduals needs to be solved at the trial level. Individuals are only supposed to be convicted when there is no reasonable doubt. Perhaps this ought to be taken more seriously, or jurors should be better screened, or grand juries need to be made more effective, but the solution is not in changing the penalty.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:People who commit capital crimes do not contemplate the punishment. Period. This comes from a very credible source, my mother.
Does she also know the number of people who didn't commit those crimes because they did contemplate the punishment?
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
Thank you Icarus for addressing the fact that keeping a person locked up costs LESS than it does to euthanize said person.
Another thing:
quote: I agree that DNA tests are important evidence, by the way. I would never say they should be simply ignored. But no single piece of evidence can be totally conclusive.
No it's not totally conclusive, but it is (depending on circumstances of course) 99.9999999999999999999999% conclusive. Oh, and:
quote: That's why I admire the consistency of the Catholic Church's stand that both abortion and the death penalty are wrong.
Yes, but they are just as fervently against the use of condoms and birth control pills/patches.
[ January 26, 2004, 03:03 AM: Message edited by: Nick ]
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Every sperm is sacred.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
quote:the $26,000 per year it costs to keep a murderer in prison
The number I heard from my colleague who used to work in corrections was actually closer to $50,000 per year.
-o-
I don't think the purpose of capital punishment is to "prove killing is wrong," and so I do not see any inconsistency here. I also do not think that it is necessary to oppose capital punishment if you oppose abortion. I don't really see these as related issues.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Frisco, your point is irrelevent (concerning deterrence). In non-death penalty states the murder rate is not statistically any higher, so those people who were deterred by the death penalty seemingly are also deterred by life w/ or w/o parole.
-Bok
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: I also do not think that it is necessary to oppose capital punishment if you oppose abortion.
I read a short snippet of a book by Rush Limbaugh where he said a pragmatist would believe in both, a Christian in neither. I didn't get far enough to find out what he considered himself to be.
The Pope's "Gospel of Life" decries both.
I think there is too great tendency to convict someone, anyone. This practice falls especially hard on minorities. But this is more of a practical concern, a little higher than cost effectiveness, but a little lower than "does the state have the right to deprive someone of life".
My strongest sentiment against is you can only kill someone once. I haven't read the short story about the guy who actually had to be killed a thousand times. I guess I should give that a shot. But capital offenses typically have to go beyond merely murdering someone. The definitions I am aware of are: murder-rape, child murder, and multiple murder. So by very definition, capital crimes cannot be discharged solely by the humane death of the accused.
I think the "no cruel or unusual" clause limits us, but it should because our judgement cannot be perfect.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
I can't seriously accept that restitution or punishment constitutes some sort of "double negative." Imagine applying the same sort of logic to other crimes:
"I'm sorry, Mr. Jones. I know the bad guys took your valuable painting, but we can't just go in there and get it to return it to you. That would be stealing, and stealing is wrong."
"Yes, he has been kidnapping people and forcing them into slavery for years now, but we can't just go in there and grab him and put him in prison. We can't take away his right to liberty like that. It would make us no better than he is."
Say what?
Besides, the goal of any punishment for any crime isn't to make things right again. If we could make things right again, we could just do it, and there would be almost no need for punishment. The death penalty won't make everything all better, and nobody's saying it needs to.
We're just saying some people have sacrificed thier right to life through their own actions.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
This is not a simple question.
There are four levels to The Death Penalty. I believe that arguing one against the other will not solve the dilema. We must argue them, pro or con, individually. Then we will see where we stand.
1) Sanctity of life. If you believe life is Sacred, then taking life, under any conditions, is sinful. The debate here is whether that sacredness exists even after the crimminal took another, or many other lives. At what point do you surrender the sacredness of your life? After killing one person? After cold bloodilly killing one? After 3? What of soldiers? Policemen? Executioners?
2) Justice/Vengeance: There is something deeply fitting about the phrase, "An eye for an eye." There is a deep urge in people to want to see justice done. So when a man murders someone, our basic nature is a call for that person to die. Although few people will phrase their arguments for Capital Punishment on the need for Justice/Vengeance, they will turn around and argue "You can't mean they should go unpunished."
Is prison punishment? Is being labeled a prisoner punishment enough? What of children who commit these crimes? What of the insane who do not recognize this crime? Should all of them face this same punishment?
(PS I disagree about forced labor making the crimminal regret his murder for the rest of his life. Most people so self-centered to be murderers will find other people to blaim for their suffering, even "those pesky kids".)
3) Innocent Suffering. The practical argument against the death penalty is that occasionally the innocent shall suffer. Death is permanent (leaving religious arguments out of this since every versiom of religion has divine judgement to handle punishment after death). Any mistake made cannot be rectified later.
We have recently seen where over-anxious prosecutors, seeking the fame and political power of being "tough on crime" and police departments seeking much the same have gone over the line in optaining prosecutions. This combined with overloading of the public defender system has resulted in a large number of guilty verdicts of innocent people. It is unknown how many innocent people the state has killed.
If you argue that killing 2 innocent men is a fair price to stop 5 murderers from killing again you better hope you or a loved one never becomes one the innocents killed. Even if those murderers are locked away in prison, they may kill other prisoners.
My problem with that argument goes back to the justice one. If my wife is killed by a man, I can demand justice from my government. If my wife is wrongly killed by the government, where can I go for justice?
Many people argue the are Pro-Capital Punishment as long as the murderers die. The devil is in that detail. How do we insure that only the guilty pay the ultimate price?
4)Practical considerations. These are monetary and deterence. We spend good money to kill these people, and we spend good money to incarcerate them. It seems the killing of them would be cheaper, but the system is so legally complicated that it may be more expensive to have them killed. Perhaps fixing the system to expidate killing the murderers while ensuring that the innocent are protected would work. Then the only question would be, how much of a fiscal savings is one life worth?
Deterents seems to be a minor issue. Sure, if the choice we would-be murderers must make is Kill and go free, there would be more murders. However, when we think, "Kill him and if I get caught I may be executed." and "Kill him and if I get caught I may go to jail for the rest of my life." there doesn't seem to be a big difference in the level of deterence between the two.
Where does this all leave me?
1) Life is sacred. Killing people who have murdered is wrong. Killing people who may murder again is right. Even if their victims will be other prisoner, they need to be stopped. The only way to stop it is to kill the killer. (we do not have the expertise to really change some people.)--Pro Death Penalty.
2)Justice and Vengeance is a strong factor, but not neccesarilly the strongest. Life in Prison is good for most murderers. I don't want to be someone who demands a death to appease my sense of justice. -- Anti Death Penalty.
3) I do not want to see innocents die. Perhaps if they did a better job of determining guilt or innocents. For now, I must stick with being cautious. --Anti Death Penalty
4) Practical, draw. The money is about the same either way in my book, and doesn't count for much in my book. Deterance is not a factor. --Draw.
Total--2.5 to 1.5 against the Death Penalty
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Your analogies are flawed, because the punishment of robbers or kidnappers isn't taking back that which they illegally procured, but in the subsequent sentences of a court of law. The recovery is just the return to the status quo.
Murder is fundamentally different in this regard, you cannot restore the status quo. No matter what you do, society is altered fundamentally. I see no reason to add a further death to events. Very rarely is no one affected by a death, even if the person is a heinous murderer (they tend to have families too). Therefore, we should do the least necessary, from an application of force standpoint, as a society to protect ourselves from the murderer. I see life without parole an acceptable solution.
Of course, I see prisons largely as holding blocks to keep societally disruptive people away from society, so that society can continue to function in a reasonably civilized manner. Incidentally, while we've got them for XX years, we might as well do our best to keep them from relapsing after they have served their term. However, once again, I see murder as a special case, and see no reason why life w/o parole isn't a worthy alternative, with the added bonuses of putting some of these people to work for some small societal gain (purposefully putting them on especially hard labor seems to me to be overly vengeful, but I have less of an immediate issue if you see this as a valuable option for all criminals regardless of their crime), or if they are incapable of that the ability to study them so warning signs of such behavior can be seen in others and treated appropriately, or, perhaps best of all, it allows them to regain some amount of liberty if they are exonerated.
-Bok
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:We're just saying some people have sacrificed thier right to life through their own actions.
What would make you believe that, though?
The right to life is unalienable - it can't be given away or taken or sacrificed.
Furthermore, even if you did believe some people sacrificed their right to live, why do you think that means we should kill them, given you admit it doesn't solve things? I have no right to a job, for instance, but that doesn't mean my employer should fire me.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
Despite the opening of the Declaration, clearly the right to life is not inalienable, or we would prosecute those who kill in self-defense, including police officers. We also would not give guns to our soldiers. (And we would have taken them away from Washington's continental soldiers.)
Remember that rights, even inalienable ones, end when they infringe on those of others. I believe people can lose their right to life if their actions have shown that allowing them to live endangers the lives of others.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
So why not just have lifetime incarceration, Icarus, rather than death penalty?
-Bok
EDIT:
Dan:
quote:Killing people who may murder again is right.
How do you make this determination, and if we can make this determination, why can't we just lock these people up and throw away the key, rather than execute them? Why give up a little of our compassion (I guess this is semantic, since I believe it is always more compassionate to not kill a person if there are no large barriers to doing so), even if it is right, or at least, acceptable?
[ January 26, 2004, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
I could be okay with that. But too often, people are released early, and sometimes they escape. I am also uncomfortable with the fact that humane treatment of criminals means giving them certain perks that many law-abiding folks in our society don't have.
I know that sometimes the "lavish" treatment of prisoners is overstated. I know that violent criminals don't end up in the minimum security "Club Fed" type places. (I actually knew somebody who spend a year in a minimum security prison. He left in the best shape of his life, after playing tennis and exercising on a daily basis, and bragged about all the comforts of prison.) I'm sure that life in a maximum-security prison can be hell in many ways. I certainly wouldn't want to be there. But there are still some fairness issues, in my mind, with the resources we expend on prisoners. Like the fact that post-secondary education is free to those prisoners who want it, while it is not for noncriminals. If we feel as a society that higher education is a right, or a good investment, then we should provide it to everybody.
Fix these issues, and I would settle for lifetime incarceration--though I would still have no moral issue with capital punishment.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
See, I think it's silly to say, "In some/many cases criminals have it too good, so I support killing them until we also restrict their opportunities." Now, I'm not against perhaps some scaling back of perks, but to predicate the abolishment of the DP on this, even partly, seems cruel to me. Take the DP out of play, and then say, "We've decided to remove this option, as a result, we think that certain privileges ought to be revoked".
As for the paroled murderers, these are the murderers that would not have gotten the death penalty in any case (which is an interesting side issue, since we don't even treat all murders as equal in the current system), so that issue is moot, I think.
The escapee issue IS a problematic issue. I can understand your reluctance on this point, and frankly, I don't have a good answer.
-Bok
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
But you're starting from a different place than I am. You're beginning with the thought that the death penalty is cruel and unusual. It doesn't seem cruel to me to predicate its abolishment on tightening up the penal system, because I consider it a perfectly appropriate punishment. I consider lifetime incarceration a liveable compromise, but only if the flaws in the system are fixed.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
In my opinion, death is a mercy compared to prison rape, which happens quite often. Just something to consider when thinking about cruel and unusual punishment, as well as justice and vengeance.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I don't think it is necessarily cruel or unusual. I think it is functionally superfluous, short of the escapee issue. Even if it weren't cruel/unusual, we have other ways to do basically the same thing that at the same time reduces total deaths, and the accompanying effects on citizens.
-Bok
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Danzig, while you may think so, should you get to make an irrevocable decision about someone else's life based on your ideas of the response of death row inmates to maximum security prisons?
Prison conditions may be harsh (even criminally so), but we can (ought to?) do something to minimize those issues. We can't give a life back to someone (or that someone to their family), if they are innocent. All other punishments can be stopped, or slacked, or moderated; death cannot.
-Bok
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Oh, yeah. We can give two years of life back to someone falsely imprisoned. And if we free somebody from slavery, everything is right in the world, again. There's no lasting damage.
("Oh, and in case you couldn't tell, I was being sarcastic.")
The entire judicial system is based on taking away freedoms or doing other things that would otherwise be morally wrong.
The whole point of the judiciary is to provide "due process" for losing those rights. You can only lose your right to privacy through "due process" to get a warrant. You can only lose your right to freedom through "due process."
Same with your right to life.
That, to me, is why 1. and 3., in Dan's example, are two seperate issues. Nobody would say, "I am against imprisoning people because the judicial system is bad." They would say, "Imprisoning people is fine, but we need to fix the system that puts them there. We need to take care not to imprison the innocent."
Doesn't this make sense to anybody? Whether you are for or against the death penalty is a completely seperate issue from whether the existing system is the best way to impliment it.
If you think murderers deserve to die, then they deserve to die. There is no need to keep them alive and put them in prison, so they can "think about thier crime."
quote:What would make you believe that, though?
The right to life is unalienable - it can't be given away or taken or sacrificed.
Furthermore, even if you did believe some people sacrificed their right to live, why do you think that means we should kill them, given you admit it doesn't solve things? I have no right to a job, for instance, but that doesn't mean my employer should fire me.
This is where the arguemnt is, to me. If the right to life is unalienable, or as I think you mean, unforfitable, then the death penalty is wrong. If the right to life is forfitable, then the death penalty is right.
That's the entire arguement. Arguements about implimenting the system or about the detterent power of the death penalty are all tangential.
The only real arguement that's left is at what point those rights are forfit.
As for the job analogy--it is not only the government's right to take rights away from those who are no longer worthy of them, it is the government's responsibility.
The way a free society works is like this (or, at least it was before 9-11):
You and I are given freedom to do what we want and come and go as we please. We're not watched, we're not tracked, we're not manipulated.
Once one of us does something to prove we're not worthy of that right, that right is taken away. The government MUST take it away, for the good of everybody else.
Sometimes they are taken away for a time. Sometimes they are taken away forever.
The free society can only remain a peaceful society if those people who abuse those freedoms have them taken away. It is not only the government's right to take those freedoms away from those people--it is the government's responisblity.
Imagine it in a job situation--you are in a Union that provides, in the contract with the company, that you have the right to keep that job. However, you have placed ground glass in the food supply in the employee kitchen. You have lost your right to work. But doesn't your company also owe it to the other employees to insure you are terminated, for all of their sakes? Isn't your workplace a better place for not having you in it, rather then relegating you to some menial job with poor pay and hard work?
So yes, I am arguing that the world would be a better place without murderers and rapists it, even if those people are only in prisons, where we cage them and wait for them to die of natural causes so that we can feel humane and compassionate to even the most vile dregs of society.
They broke the rules. And they broke the rules so bad that we're not just going to put them in time out. We're not going to let them play.
A life sentence, if lived out, is the death penalty. We all just sit around waiting to see how it's going to happen, rather than deciding for ourselves.
It's the same either way. They're put in a cage where all they have to look forward to is death.
Is it really all that compassionate to make them wait it out?
Or can we, even without hate, take the life of that man who we may understand, we may forgive, but who we know has made his own fate, when he chose what he chose, and maybe even do that out of compassion?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I think that if the right to life in not inalienable, it simply means the death penalty is acceptable, not necessarily that it is right, or best, or most effective.
-Bok
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:Frisco, your point is irrelevent (concerning deterrence). In non-death penalty states the murder rate is not statistically any higher, so those people who were deterred by the death penalty seemingly are also deterred by life w/ or w/o parole.
The largest urban area in states without the death penalty is Detroit(#7 metro area in the U.S. in population), and Michigan has the highest murder rate of the states with no capital punishment.
So, there are potentially other reasons for the murder rate in non-death penalty states to be lower. It's a much smaller sample, too. Only 37 million people reside in states without capital punishment, compared to 247 million in the other states.
That said, I was only pointing out a flaw in logic. I could care less if the death penalty were a deterrence. I like it as a method for removing unsavory individuals from the gene pool.
We have to find some way to work with the laws of natural selection. We can't defy them at every turn.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Humans are creatures with such amazingly selective vision...
We kill people all the time, and sometimes for the most flimsy of reasons. We bomb people because we don't like their leaders. Police shoot people for wielding their wallet threateningly. Heck, we even sent american's to help the columbian government kill people working in the coca fields, most of whom were just peasants looking to make a buck.
And we mostly turn a blind eye.
But then we find someone truly despicable. A guy who rapes and murders two little girls (he is on trial here in Portland right now). And suddenly we are overwhelmingly concerned with his rights, and the morality of ending his disgusting existence.
*shrug*
Humans are small. They like the small fights. You want to make the world a better place? End war. That kills millions of innocent people every year. Then come talk about saving the really horrible people. Starting with the worst seems like working backwards to me.
But, I'm human and small just like the rest. And it's easy for me to believe that certain actions cause you to give up your right to life. In fact, my threshold is probably lower than a lot of peoples. Break into my house and threaten my family and as far as I'm concerned you've forfeited your existence. So the guy who raped two little girls and buried them in his back yard is a no brainer.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Firstly, there are no laws of natural selection that are applicable to us; besides, they only apply to reproductive opportunity, anytime we prevent someone from reproducing that's as good as having killed them as far as those "laws" are concerned.
Slash -- I happen to oppose killing in most of those situations you mention. And my opposition to the death penalty furthermore isn't absolute, but rests on an opposition to killing innocent people, which has been done repeatedly in the US.
Also, the suggestion that we should do nothing unless we eliminate other examples of killing isn't particularly persuasive. If something is undesirable, its undesirable, and we might as well start by trying to eliminate undesirable things we can have an effect on. War is not something we can stop; the death penalty as currently implemented (currently implemented in a way that routinely kills innocent people) is.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:Firstly, there are no laws of natural selection that are applicable to us; besides, they only apply to reproductive opportunity, anytime we prevent someone from reproducing that's as good as having killed them as far as those "laws" are concerned.
Eh? Are you saying that humans aren't subject to it, or that we've become so socialist that there's no way we could be, now?
And if it were only a case of genes, I'd certainly be in favor of...er...dismemberment. But as it's a safety issue, also, it's better that we get rid of murderers altogether.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Simply put, there are no laws of natural selection we must enforce. Natural selection only applies to a population, and there is nothing negative about a population failing to survive, it is just something that happens. Evolutionary considerations are amoral. They do not require enforcement to happen, because there is no way they cannot happen. They are merely a way of expressing what does happen.
As such, any appeal to enforcing the laws of natural selection is meaningless.
You can make all the arguments you want about benefit to society and such, and I might even agree with some. But appeals to the laws of natural selection still don't mean a thing.
I repeat, there is no such thing as being "not subject" to the laws of natural selection; that is simply not possible. They are simply a way of describing what does happen.
And as far as evolution is concerned, yes, it is pretty much only a matter of genes. Natural selection describes (not enforces) how favorable (genes which result in better survival of the population) genes are selected for, and unfavorable genes selected against. Nothing to do with individuals except insofar as they are carriers of genes.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Aah, a semantic technicality. When I want a textbook answer, I'll go to a textbook. When I want actual thoughts, I'll come to Hatrack.
You apparently knew what I meant, but I suppose I'll rephrase it to this: We're no longer allowing those without the skills to keep from starving to death to do so. We're actively countering evolution on an individual level in order to increase our population.
We're well beyond ensuring the survival of our species through population. Quality, not quantity, is what is going to bring us a higher certainty of survival, now--i.e. getting off this rock.
While the term can be used to describe the final product, humans, I believe, are conscious enough of the concept of natural selection to anticipate our path and change it.
Maybe I'll start referring to my theory as "unnatural selection". Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Evolution doesn't occur on an individual level.
You shouldn't speak of your theory as natural selection, you're right. Because it isn't. Natural selection has no moral weight.
I apologize if I'm being hard line on this, but a lot of people oppose evolutionary theory precisely because of rather misguided ideas about natural selection.
Also, you'd be surprised to learn that those species which survive via natural selection often survive via unexpected means. Its sort of like trying to do what results in the fewest deaths -- you really can't tell in advance.
For instance, its quite possible some individual could be a murderer AND a scientist with research that might result in curing a major disease -- this is particularly appropriate to the style of mass murderer that is currently "in vogue". Ultimately, the number of people killed would be less than the number saved by far. However, I support killing the mass murderer. Is this the best choice for the survival of our species? Probably not. Is this example contrived? yes. but it serves its purpose, to illustrate in a hyperbolic manner how choices are not always so obvious, particularly in such an entwined society as ours.
But lets continue the analogy; lets make the scientist innocent yet incorrectly exectued. Now he's dead. However, had there been no death penalty he likely would have gotten out eventually, reasonable doubt established. And perhaps continued his important research. Makes you think, I hope.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:Evolution doesn't occur on an individual level.
When we allow millions of individuals, who shouldn't even be in the gene pool, to flood it, we're countering it on that level.
Or did you think I meant that a single person could grow a tail on his 50th birthday?
Any while your analogy is a bit of a stretch (is there really a wave of accomplished scientists going around killing people?), I'd still favor the death penalty. As it's been said before, ensuring that a Death Row inmate is guilty needs to be done on the trial level.
And if he's guilty, well...if he's not smart enough to not get caught, it shouldn't be too hard to find a worthy replacement.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Note that I said I would also favor the death penalty in such a case (and mass murders by medical practitioners is on a bit of a rise lately, yes).
Also, why shouldn't those individuals be in the gene pool? In many species individuals who kill other members of their species are quite successful. You're trying to fit moral arguments to evolution; that just isn't correct.
There is no "countering" to be done. There is nothing to counter. No evaluation is done by evolutionary forces. There is only what happens, and never what should happen.
As for your smart enough to not get caught comment, many medical mass murderers are caught only through the one piece of evidence they can't avoid: statistics.
[ January 27, 2004, 08:06 AM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:In many species individuals who kill other members of their species are quite successful.
The further you go down the scale of intelligence, the more prevalent such species become. I'm not of the opinion that humans are one of those species, though.
quote:You're trying to fit moral arguments to evolution; that just isn't correct.
I think you're trying to make my arguments moral. I merely think that any society can only handle a certain amount of aberrance. Rebellion needs to be quelled at some level, even if it seems moral.
quote:(and mass murders by medical practitioners is on a bit of a rise lately, yes).
Oh, I thought you said scientists. Or are these surgeons also performing research in between 16-hour shifts? Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No Frisco, you're the one using words like "need". There is no such thing in natural selection. There is no volition, no imperative, no guideline, no suggestion, no definitionally preferred course. It is just what happens; there is no necessity.
This statement by you is filled with such "moral" (used in the most abstract sense) implications:
quote:I merely think that any society can only handle a certain amount of aberrance. Rebellion needs to be quelled at some level, even if it seems moral.
Society is a moral construct. Aberration (in the sense you use it) is a moral construct. "Handling it" is a moral construct. Rebellion is moral construct. Need is a moral construct. None of these have anything to do with natural selection, which is completely distinct from morality. It could be the moral thing to let the species die out; this would be just as "evolutionarily valid" as maximizing our population, because there is no such thing as being evolutionarily valid, more in line with evolution/natural selection, evolutionarily better, or whatever other term you want to assign to it.
[ January 27, 2004, 08:36 AM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:None of these have anything to do with natural selection, which is completely distinct from morality.
With or without the broad definition of "moral", I think this is the pretense on which I disagree. I agree they're distinct, but not independent of each other.
Posted by PaladinVirtue (Member # 6144) on :
I am compelled to to offer a thought or two to the interesting turn this conversation has taken concerneing the definition of "evolution" and natural selection. Coming from a biology background this is a very interesting topic to me.
My question is to Fugu...How can you say that evolution has no moral implications considering that we, as a sentient species, have the ability to comprehend and manipulate the process. I contend that as soon as we gained this ability, there were automatic moral guidelines and responcibilities assigned with that knowledge. I mean the human species interferes with natural selection all the time. How can you say that it is not a morality issue when activist groups protest to save a species purely on moral principles?
I get that you are saying that our actions are just part of evolution and natural selection. But if we are aware of it, and can manipulate our actions accordingly, then it is not natural anymore. It's human selcetion.
And back to the deah penalty arguement. It is an interesting thought to start controlling our own species' evolution by killing the worst segement. Anyone else seen Gatacca? And though I am in favor of the ultimate punishment for a certain segment of out species, I think this is not the best arguement. It might sound crazy but I would rather limit their right to life than their right ot reproduce.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I think fugu's using "evolution" and "natural selection" as terms describing the history of a finished process, whereas I'm using them to describe the actual process, which I believe can be affected, at least by humans, by Morals.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It can certainly be affected. Anything could be affected by morals. Doesn't mean they aren't distinct.
And evolution/natural selection is never a finished process.
Lets see if I can clarify. Natural selection/evolutionary theory never dictate, mandate, require, or suggest anything. They are merely descriptive tools for stuff that happens. Yes, humans can attempt to make moral judgements based on them, but these moral judgements are not derived from any morality inherent in natural selection; they are not advised or informed by natural selection/evolutionary theory, but merely predicated upon results thereof.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
To offer an example as to why affected things can still be distinct: a moral choice can certainly affect whether I have cereal for breakfast or have nothing. Heck, I can conjecture moral choices that would affect which cereal I have for breakfast (say, avoiding a certain chain of supermarket because they torture children), yet which cereal I have for breakfast (excluding abnormal externalities) is still distinct from morality.
Posted by PaladinVirtue (Member # 6144) on :
"Natural selection/evolutionary theory never dictate, mandate, require, or suggest anything. They are merely descriptive tools for stuff that happens."
Neither is a hammer moral or immoral. But it can be a tool used in an immoral fashion? Is that what you are saying?
Though this is true, there is a problem when applying that to the terms of evolution and natural selection. The fact that they can be used/manipulated/perverted changes thir nature. Using a hammmer to bash someone doesn' change the hammer. But manipulating selction and thereby evolution changes them, makes them un-natural. And the use of anything carries moral implications.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*snort*
Sorry, had to laugh. Evolution/natural selection is never un-natural. Humans are not external to nature, they are a part of it. One can never do anything "against" natural selection because one is an agent of natural selection (or perhaps more precisely, an agent in a system which has natural selection).
I cannot violate natural selection any more than a tree, a cow, or a shark can. Nobody can. The idea that one can is false.
Posted by PaladinVirtue (Member # 6144) on :
*snort*
Sorry, had to laugh. Evolution/natural selection is never un-natural. Humans are not external to nature, they are a part of it. One can never do anything "against" natural selection because one is an agent of natural selection (or perhaps more precisely, an agent in a system which has natural selection).
I cannot violate natural selection any more than a tree, a cow, or a shark can. Nobody can. The idea that one can is false.
OK...but then if the above is taken as the true definition of "natural selection", and we as a species make decisions that effect the evolution of a species based upon a moral argument, then at that point the resulting evolution has some component of morality.
I think our failure to commincate is an issue of semantics. Define natural. I define it as unaltered, without human guidence or manipulation or interference. Therefore when we dictate the course of evolution for a species and create a new species (recombinent DNA and bacteria for example), that is not "natural selection". It is controlled selection (un-natural selection) and we are the agent of control.
The concept of natural selection assumes no other agenda other than survival of the species. Or survvival of the fittest if you prefer. Selection with any other agenda is not natural.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I know I'm distracting away from your evolution/natural selection argument, but I wanted to make a comment to something said further back...
quote: So why not just have lifetime incarceration, Icarus, rather than death penalty?
That is the problem -- life in prison just isn't life in prison.
Every three years, I (and my family) have to "make a date" with the parole board, and tell them all over again why my father's killer should NOT be released on parole.
If you don't think that is hell to go through, then you haven't been through it. It is totally re-victimizing the family.
I could be satisfied that there is no death penalty if those convicted actually DID spend the rest of their natural lives in jail.
Farmgirl
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Natural selection assumes no agenda at all.
Also, your definition of unnatural in the context of natural selection is quite simply wrong. Natural selection is just a way of describing what is happening in terms of relative survival advantage and disadvantage. When one species of shark evolves a taste bud which makes a particular species of fish tasty, that species of fish is at a relative selective disadvantage to where it was previously. Similarly, when humans decide to fill in wetlands the denizens of those wetlands are at a relative selective disadvantage to where they were previously. We are just as much animals as the shark is, just as much natural. The sharks' actions were no more natural or unnatural than ours were.
The sharks' actions was just as much an action of control as ours was (albeit ours was on a bigger scale -- we're a very well adapted and powerful species). We cannot do anything unnatural for the simple reason we are a part of nature (particularly as far as natural selection is concerned, where nature actually refers to anything that's part of reality, pretty much).
Posted by PaladinVirtue (Member # 6144) on :
To use your illistration: Does the shark understand the ramifications of it selection of that species of fish as a delicacy? No. Is it concerned with the preservation of that fish species? No. No moral interference what-so-ever. Natural selection by definition. That fish species will experience increased predation exceterra...
But people, being a sentient organism have the ability to comprehend the consequences of the actions, their exclusive predation in this example. Introduce reasoning and morals. Hence we effect the process of evolution based upon morals. This can make evolution, when contolled by humans, a moral issue.
"Natural selection assumes no agenda at all."
Ok, but if that is true, and we intruduce an agenda ( by manipulation of DNA, breeding paterns, etc...) Then is is NOT natural selection. It is not selection as it would have been if we, as humans with all our morals, hadn't interfered and introduced an agenda.
Sorry Farmgirl for taking over this thread, and thanks for bringing us back around to the subject. Great point.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Slash, nice rhetoric.
The thing is, I agree that I'd love to try and stop wars (I think wars out of self defense are actually acceptable, and this can mean pre-emptive, if a clear and present danger is known), cops with itchy trigger fingers, what have you. So your attempt to set up some sort of dichotomy is false, particularly since no one has claimed to be less interested in the former than the death penalty.
Hell, thanks to a bulletin posted at my church's bulletin board at Christmas, I am boycotting Taco Bell, since they are getting tomatos from distributors that crack down on farmer rights to organize for a better wage. These farmers are being paid less today (probably equivalently) than they were 20 years ago, and any attempts by them to organize to ask for a better wage are cracked down on, one way or another.
I am trying to do some stuff to make this world a better place, where I think I can make the most impact, as I see it. I'm sorry that you disagree with every detail, but just because you disagree doesn't make it so. I fail, often, but the alternative is to not care at all, it seems to me.
Of course, your argument SEEMS effective since all we are talking about in this thread is the death penalty. But, uhhhh, this is a thread whose topic is solely the death penalty (see thread title). So just because we are putting 2 pages of effort into this doesn't mean we care less about other situations you could dream up, it just means there aren't threads on those subjects that we have read lately on them, or even more likely, we agree with you on those points.
We're all human, and small. But that doesn't mean we have to BE small all the time. You're a pessimist, I'm an optimist, at least on this issue.
Now, as to your argument itself, sure, with your particular outlook on humanity, it makes sense. But don't go casting aspersions (sp) on others who may not have that outlook (as you imply strongly at the start of your post).
--- Farmgirl, while it is hell for you (and I am sorry about that, that plain sucks), if the person is in fact, reformed (which is not uncommon in murderers, they have one of the lowest recidivism rates for violent crimes, I believe), they SHOULD be set free. It allows us to keep in jail current dangers to society, and allows that person to be beneficial to society.
I agree that in the case of capital punishment cases, the alternative shouldn't be life w/ parole, but life w/o parole. The problem in your case is either that the state in question did not have the death penalty (to which I reccommend that you push for life w/o parole), or the person was not up for capital punishment anyway. If you are implying that all murderers should get a minimum of life w/o parole, and preferably the death penalty, I think that is a harsher stance than anyone has discussed here, and you should elaborate on it, I think it would be interesting, and I could definitely be sympathetic to mandatory life w/o parole (if not death penalty for all murderers).
-- The whole natural selection argument is semantic, but only because everyone but fugu is using a colloquial definition of it. fugu's point about the "absence of intent" in natural selection is NOT semantic, and is a crucial point in understanding natural selection, I think.
If you mean natural as "not man-modified", while this works when talking about, say, medicines, or structures (natural rock formation versus sculpture, for instance), it is a huge difference in the idea of natural selection. By using the more colloquial definition, you are defining an arbitrary, anthropomorphically convenient line that doesn't really exist.
The natural human, that is, all that is human that is not metaphysical (like souls, or spirits) is inherently contained within a system of natural selection. Everything that maifests itself in the physical is natural, at the level at which natural selection describes. Whether it was a moral choice, a choice out of emotion, or just dumb luck, natural selection doesn't care. The subjects under which natural selection may manifest an emotion equivalent to caring about how the action occurred, but that's not within the scope of natural selection.
-Bok
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Bok-
quote: Farmgirl, while it is hell for you (and I am sorry about that, that plain sucks), if the person is in fact, reformed (which is not uncommon in murderers, they have one of the lowest recidivism rates for violent crimes, I believe), they SHOULD be set free. It allows us to keep in jail current dangers to society, and allows that person to be beneficial to society.
I agree that in the case of capital punishment cases, the alternative shouldn't be life w/ parole, but life w/o parole. The problem in your case is either that the state in question did not have the death penalty (to which I reccommend that you push for life w/o parole), or the person was not up for capital punishment anyway. If you are implying that all murderers should get a minimum of life w/o parole, and preferably the death penalty, I think that is a harsher stance than anyone has discussed here, and you should elaborate on it, I think it would be interesting, and I could definitely be sympathetic to mandatory life w/o parole (if not death penalty for all murderers).
Reform -- I have actually thought a lot about that. The kid that killed my dad was 22 or 23 when he did this. No prior record, no personal reason, no provocation, etc. Just felt like doing it, I guess. So what if he "reforms"? As a Christian, I'm supposed to forgive, is that not right? 1) How do I know that he is reformed -- we are not given updates on his behavior in prison -- that is not releasable information. 2) If this was a random whim, how do I know he won't just "feel like it" again once he is out? I guess it is BECAUSE there are no guarantees that he won't victimize another family that I don't want to take the risk of putting him back on the street. One year I refused to go to the parole hearing (my family was very displeased) because I felt he SHOULD have to be released so that I would quit supporting him, and he would have to support himself, and make his own way, and find that life is tough. But IF he had been released and then killed someone else, I would never have been able to live with myself.
You are right -- at the time of this murder, our state did not have the death penalty, or even the "hard 40" for capital murder. Life sentence was the hardest thing, and that simply meant "in prison for 15 years, then you come up for parole". That was all they had.
So while there are tougher sentences now, they are not retro, obviously. Which I guess brings up an ethical dilemma all in and of itself -- if someone now commits a capital murder and is sentenced to death penalty, but someone who did a same or worse offense 20 years ago is not under that law, how is that fair or just?
Kansas now has the Hard 40 for 1st degree murder, as well as the death penalty for capital. We have several on death row, but none executed yet, that I know of.
Farmgirl
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Well, you never know. You either need to be hopeful of people changing effectively (which in such a personal case is likely impossible), or take heart in the fact that the odds are on the side of the kid not backsliding, statistically speaking (also not very convincing).
Of course, it isn't like your family's opinion is the make it/break it for whether or not parole is granted (is this actually the case everywhere?). They do a much greater report on eligibility based on prison behavior, psych work-ups, the convicts own interview with the board, and probably a bunch of other stuff. So even if you family was all FOR parole, I don't think that he would be paroled on that alone.
Which is all moot, because you obviously strongly, and you may be right (you have more info on this particular case than I).
-Bok
[ January 27, 2004, 01:02 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I'd also add that from the sound of it, this kid would never have been up for the death penalty even if it did exist at the time, but the "hard 40" could be better than "parole review at 15", though I still tend to think ill of mandatory sentences. If this kid does turn it around, say 25 years in, it seems unjust to not allow a review for parole for another 15 years, and probably in a few cases would be detrimental to reforming them in the first place.
I think retro-active sentencing would be a good thing, but is also likely a boondoggle from a review standpoint: what new sentence does an old sentence of X deserve? So short of that, I think you have to see the like of retro-sentencing a cost for society trying to figure out how we out to work, unfortunately.
-Bok
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:But, I'm human and small just like the rest. And it's easy for me to believe that certain actions cause you to give up your right to life. In fact, my threshold is probably lower than a lot of peoples. Break into my house and threaten my family and as far as I'm concerned you've forfeited your existence. So the guy who raped two little girls and buried them in his back yard is a no brainer.
Except we're not interest in finding out what is easiest to believe. We want to know which is right.
(As a general rule, I think it's easier to believe things that fulfill your emotional whims, except in cases where the evidence against your whims is pretty darn obvious. But in many questionable cases, emotion is wrong, even if it feels easy to believe it is right.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Retroactive sentences are Constitutionally illegal.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Ah, well there goes that.
-Bok
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Bok
quote:Which is all moot, because you obviously strongly, and you may be right (you have more info on this particular case than I).
Your opinions are definately NOT moot -- that is why I have read this thread with such interest -- because I have felt "on the fence" for so long on this issue.
Back right after the murder, when my heart was filled with anger, I was definately pro-death penalty. Very vengence-minded.
But I've mellowed with age. I've learned that many things in life are not so black & white when it comes to right&wrong and certain issues.
So while you can rightly say I'm passionate about this issue -- I'm also can fully see both sides of the argument. And I haven't declared myself to be on either side at this point.
FG
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Well, I meant more about your particular case, than in general. I certainly haven't censored my self on this thread
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Does she also know the number of people who didn't commit those crimes because they did contemplate the punishment?