quote: Moussaoui mocked the tearful testimony of 9/11 victims and their families and wished for similar attacks every day until America falls. He gave a detailed explanation of his hatred for America, flipping through a Quran on the witness stand trying to find justification for his views.
I understand not wanting to execute anyone when there's the slightest question of guilt, but this guy is guilty in spades and eager to do it again.
I'm curious to know if this man would be an exception for even the most ardent anti-death penalty people.
Farther down in the article he testifies that he expects to be released as part of a prisoner exchange.
Pix
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
What exactly is he guilty of?
What is his crime that warrants the death penalty again?
Hating America?
Rejoicing in the pain of others?
Being in dire need on Lithium?
Is any of this worse than the #@$#@ minister in Kansas who protests soldiers funerals claiming they deserved to die?
He did not kill anybody. He just didn't tell people he considers his enemies what his friends were doing. Its doubtful if that information would have saved any lives anyway.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:What exactly is he guilty of?
What is his crime that warrants the death penalty again?
His crime is causing the death of everybody in 911 by wilfully lying to the FBI, the assumption being that if he had told the truth, it could have been stopped.
quote:He did not kill anybody. He just didn't tell people he considers his enemies what his friends were doing.
No, the charge isn't that he didn't tell, but that he actively lied.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
....
Conspiracy to commit mass murder?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
His charges: Conspiracy to Commit Acts of Terrorism Transcending National Boundaries Conspiracy to Commit Aircraft Piracy Conspiracy to Destroy Aircraft Conspiracy to Use Weapons of Mass Destruction Conspiracy to Murder United States Employees Conspiracy to Destroy Property
quote:Is any of this worse than the #@$#@ minister in Kansas who protests soldiers funerals claiming they deserved to die?
I don't think anyone in their right mind loves Phelps, but he is exercising his rights to free speech and peaceful demonstration. That's totally different than someone who knew about and helped plan to kill over 3,000 people. And who would be happy to do it again, anything to bring an end to the United States of America and kill anyone who is not Muslim. Please. If you're going to compare the guy to someone, pick someone who has committed real atrocities who is nonetheless not going to be executed. Like Gary Ridgeway.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Conspiracy to commit murder is difficult to prove, and from what I've seen in the case, I am unsure if the government made that case.
His anti-us/pro-death/pain loving rant does nothing to prove this case other than to show he had the desire to be part of such a conspiracy. It certainly throws into question if he had the temperment/sanity to be recruited for such an conspiracy.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I have no illusions about his guilt. And frankly, his execution wouldn't bother me much at all.
I am wary of providing a martyr, though.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I am wary of providing a martyr, though.
I'm worried about that as well.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
If we keep him in prison, they will likely take hostages to get him released. Is that any better than a martyr?
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
There's no one more pro-death penalty that I am, but it's not so clear to me, based upon what I've read in the papers, that even if this guy cooperated with the Feds we would have been able to stop 9-11. My understanding is that the 9-11 conspirators thought him too loco and unreliable, which is why they put him on the second wave. He's guilty because he was part of the 9-11 conspiracy, not just because he didn't cooperate. For the conspiracy alone he deserves the death penalty. On the other hand, I'd rather see him put into the general population of our toughest federal prison and let the inmates mete their own punishment.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
That's my big concern, too.
I think the best recourse in sentencing as guilty would be to put him someplace extremely well-guarded, treat him decently, but pretty much ignore him otherwise (and make sure others can't be influenced by him, as well).
Treating him decently would include any and all appropriate mental health care, too. But to the extent that his horrible behavior cannot be explained by psychopathology (and I have no idea how much this would be, by the way), I think whatever is left would be most effectively and infuriatingly addressed by indifference.
He strikes me as the sort of person who might well dread being a "nobody" more than any other fate at all.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
fwiw, I'm not really pro-death penalty anymore. Used to be, but really don't see the point.
And in Moussaui's case, I think we're going to have a hard time keeping him alive and secure at the same time.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:On the other hand, I'd rather see him put into the general population of our toughest federal prison and let the inmates mete their own punishment.
I'd rather we kept the law and didn't administer cruel and unusual punishment.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
So, then, if we're going to kill Moussaoui for not telling what he knew, what should we do about the higher-ups in the FBI who apparently, in the months before 9/11, repeatedly ignored reports by field agents (from at least two offices: Minneapolis, Minnesota and Phoenix, Arizona) that flight schools should be investigated for possibly training terrorists?
Personally, at the very least, I think these guys should have been denied promotion. However, it is my understanding that at least one official who quashed the reports was in fact promoted later on.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Conspiracy to commit murder is difficult to prove, and from what I've seen in the case, I am unsure if the government made that case.
He admitted guilt to conspiracy to commit murder. The conspiracy charge does NOT stem from his lying to the FBI. The lying was an act in furtherence of the conspiracy he was already part of. The key thing that needed to be proved is if his act led to the death of at least one person.
quote:So, then, if we're going to kill Moussaoui for not telling what he knew, what should we do about the higher-ups in the FBI who apparently, in the months before 9/11, repeatedly ignored reports by field agents (from at least two offices: Minneapolis, Minnesota and Phoenix, Arizona) that flight schools should be investigated for possibly training terrorists?
The lying was one act he committed as part of a conspiracy he had already joined and furthered. It's quite different from being a bad investigator.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
If he is executed, it will be regretable (to me), but I won't lose much sleep.
I dunno, I can't hate anyone enough to condemn them to death*. Which doesn't mean I want this guy to ever see the outside of a prison ever again.
I don't want him abused in prison; I don't even care if we hope holding him the rest of his life is worse than the death penalty. I'm not big on vengeance. I leave that up to those who are more qualified than me.
-Bok
*I believe that it can be justified to kill in individual self-defense, but in those situations we aren't left with many other options.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
Regarding whether he wants to be made into a martyr and whether he dreads being a "nobody," why should we care about what his feelings are in the matter. Sure its better if he fears the death penalty, but if he doesn't, so what? The point is that he must, by one way or another, die. As for making him a martyr, these crazies have plenty of them already. What difference would one more make?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mig: Regarding whether he wants to be made into a martyr and whether he dreads being a "nobody," why should we care about what his feelings are in the matter. Sure its better if he fears the death penalty, but if he doesn't, so what? The point is that he must, by one way or another, die.
Trust me on this -- he will.
I was just musing on the rest, not offering it as argument.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I dunno, I can't hate anyone enough to condemn them to death*
I don't think that you have to hate someone to condemn them to death.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I think, in some way, you do.*shrug*
I don't really know why, I just do. Visualizing nightmare scenarios (violence to my wife), makes me want to do all sorts of pain and injury to that imaginary person, but I still stop short of killing them.
Maybe that just makes me sadistic, in some way.
-Bok
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
Well, many/most people that are against the death penalty are just going with "Thou shall not kill"
that's pretty clear, and independant of the situation (though obviously there are some grey areas such as self defense, or killing an attacker in order to save an innocent family etc...)
if you're against it based on some doubt of guilt then perhaps this would be an instance where you could waffle to the pro side for a second. However, while it may not be entirely applicable in this case, also consider some doubt in possible insanity etc... I could vehemently claim that I shot Kennedy, but that doesn't make me guilty. (ignore the fact that I wasn't born yet)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I personally hope that the people who do condemn others to death do it without hate.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
What's wrong with hate? I hate Hitler and Stalin, and probably would have hated them more if I had been around during thier murderous days. Why not hate serial killers and men who rape and torture children? Why not hate tyrants like Castro or BenLaden? Why not hate everything that these evil men stand for and do? Why not hate their followers who are willing to do the biding of these evil men? But that I hate men like Moussaoui has nothing to do with the issue. He must die, not because I hate him, but because it is just.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
why not hate? because hate only propogates more hate... vendettas are not a good thing.
I'd rather pitty people who are that misguided and twisted. And to be honest even that is somewhat satisfying because pity is likley to piss off extremists more than hate...
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
What positive benefit comes from hating? I see no need for it to one firm of purpose.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Mig, I don't know. All good questions. When I think on it, like my earlier answer, I want to cause them extreme pain in creative ways. But I don't want to kill them.
Maybe that is hate. But then why do I not feel like I should kill them?
-Bok
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
because hate is pointless. It doesn't impact the person you are hating, all it does is drag you down.
As for killing him, I would be against it. I don't think it is right to kill someone who you have in custody. It seems a bit like murder to me.
If you catch someone like him in the act, I see nothing wrong with killing to stop the crime. I wouldn't see anything wrong with assasinating someone like Hitler, or Bin Laden. However, once you have them in custody, you don't need to kill them to stop their actions...so I feel that killing them would be wrong.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
quote: What positive benefit comes from hating? I see no need for it to one firm of purpose.
If you cannot hate evil men and the evil that they do, if you cannot hate terrorists like Moussaoui and BenLadeen, then how firm can one's purpose be?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Pretty firm. Pretty clear and unadulterated too, at least in possibility.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
You think that I have a problem with stopping people like Moussaoui and bin Laden, even if it is necessary to kill them? I really don't.
I see no need to indulge in hating these people in order to do this. Rationally, I'm in a situation where these actions are important for my continued survival. I don't feel the need for an emotional goad.
You may as well say that I don't want to pass a test if I don't spend time worrying about it. The way I see it, you prepare as best as you can and then you do it. Worry or hate generally not only don't help you acheive your goals, but they often hinder them as well.
They make you stupid. They make you stressed. They distract your focus away from where it is needed.
I think it's a bad idea to turn your enemies into things or monsters. I think it's a mistake to stop viewing them as generally rational human beings trying to acheive their goals. When you understand them, they become much easier to stop. Also, I have to wonder how committed you are if you feel a need to do this before you can act aggressively towards them.
Hate is not a show of strength. It's a sign of weakness.
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
You don't have to hate people to want them stopped or brought to justice, even if that justice is death. Hate has nothing to do with stopping people who are committing atrocious acts. Stopping them is worth it independent of your personal feelings toward them.
If someone I love was doing something illegal, I would still want them to face justice. At the same time, I would still love them.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
The workings of this guy's mind are unintelligible to me. I could just say that he is a loon, but I don't even know enough to make that case. Either way, I'm don't like the idea of killing people for being hateful towards America.
If the only reason to kill him is because the American populace would get off on it, I think we should expect more of the American people. Maybe if I could believe that Mousaoui were capable of masterminding anything, then maybe I could agree, but the guy seems like a foot-soldier who wasn't called to duty, so we are talking about killing him not for conspiracy or even the crime, but for his zealousness and willingness to commit the crime.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I'm not entirely convinced he doesn't want to die, whatever he may say.
But to let him stay in prison indefinitely with his irrational hope for future freedom doesn't seem adequate punishment.
The reptilian part of my brain would like to put him in a high security prison, but not in solitary.
I don't know what to do with him, honestly.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
None of you have adressed what to do when hostages are taken and the demands are this man's freedom.
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
The same thing that we do when hostages are taken and the demands are other people's freedom.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I'm not sure that keeping him alive but refraining from discussing him will give additional ammunition to hostage-takers. I mean, would it be that hard to find something else to take hostages for? Like, say, our troops leaving a certain area?
If they want to take hostages, they will find a reason to do so. As it is, this guy has already been marginalized by his own band of politicos. I don't really think they'd have anything invested in him, particularly,* unless it is as an excuse.
(In which case, see above.)
-------
Edited to add: *Unlike, say, bin Laden himself. Now you could ask whether bin Laden should be put to death if he were in this guy's shoes, but that might well be a different discussion.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:None of you have adressed what to do when hostages are taken and the demands are this man's freedom.
Because I don't think that our criminal justice system should be subverted for fear of what terrorist/hostage-takers might do. We live our life by the light of wisdom and an eye to dignity, not from of fear of what some animals would do.
[ April 14, 2006, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
It isn't as if extremists aren't already taking hostages and demanding their comrades' freedom. If someone did that over this guy, we would follow the same protocol.
Refuse to let him out, do everything we can to get the hostages out. If we can't we will be very sad for what happens.
We are already doing this over and over in Iraq anyway. I don't see why a brand new system should be instituted for one guy.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: The lying was one act he committed as part of a conspiracy he had already joined and furthered. It's quite different from being a bad investigator.
That's true. But people get fired from jobs all the time for making mistakes and bad judgements that are far, far less costly than refusing to allow further investigation of activities that ended up costing thousands of lives.
I'm not saying that whoever quashed the investigations should be executed. I'm not even necessarily saying that they should be fired. However, I am saying that they screwed up big-time and there should have been some negative consequences for them. Job promotion is not a negative consequence.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
quote: I see no need to indulge in hating these people in order to do this.
No indulgence here. Some people are easy to hate.
quote: Rationally, I'm in a situation where these actions are important for my continued survival. I don't feel the need for an emotional goad.
Very true, but hate need not be blind to be justified, or an all consuming emotion to prompt one to act.
quote: They make you stupid. They make you stressed. They distract your focus away from where it is needed.
Again, hating a terrorist should not require a great effort, or be a blinding emotion or passion, or cloud rationality.
quote: I think it's a mistake to stop viewing them as generally rational human beings trying to acheive their goals.
These are not rational men.
quote: When you understand them, they become much easier to stop.
True. And I think I understanding them. And I think you understand them too which is why you are equally committed to stopping them.
quote: Also, I have to wonder how committed you are if you feel a need to do this before you can act aggressively towards them.
I don't feel a need to hate these men before acting agressively towards them. I just think that hatred of terrorists is reasonable and justified. I do not see the need for moral hesitancy. It is not enough for me to say that I "dislike" men who fly planes full of people into tall buildings full of people. I more than "dislike" men who fly planes full of people into tall buildings full of people. Why would I, or any one, want to act agressively against any person, or group of persons [read terrorists] I only "dislike?" I "dislike" Britany Spears, I hate BenLadeen.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Would you have hated Ender, if you were on Earth and he had been real?
(Not trying to make a point, honest -- just trying to understand.)
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
I would have loved Ender for saving us from the Buggers. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Okay. I can understand that.
What are other misunderstood OSC characters? Anyone think of a relevant story here?
-----
Edited to add: I'm not trying to suggest that the guy in the original post is or was misunderstood. I'm trying to piece through Mig's stance on hate.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:What's wrong with hate? I hate Hitler and Stalin, and probably would have hated them more if I had been around during thier murderous days. Why not hate serial killers and men who rape and torture children? Why not hate tyrants like Castro or BenLaden?
Because I don't trust the judgments of somebody who is acting out of hate.
quote:Why not hate everything that these evil men stand for and do?
That's easy. Because no man is entirely evil.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
Thank you ClaudiaTherese for making the effort, even if end up disagreeing.
quote: Because no man is entirely evil.
I agree. But so what? Hitler's dog loved him, and I'm sure his mother and Eva saw his nice side. But why equivocate?
This might help: The online Merriam-Webster gives two definitions for hate:
quote: 1 a : intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury
Not what I mean.
quote: b : extreme dislike or antipathy
That's more like it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mig:
quote: Because no man is entirely evil.
I agree. But so what? Hitler's dog loved him, and I'm sure his mother and Eva saw his nice side. But why equivocate?
You asked why I shouldn't hate everything an evil man does or stands for.
Because not all the things [insert evin man here] did or stood for were evil. Why should I bother to hate taking showers just because Hitler took them?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mig: Thank you ClaudiaTherese for making the effort, even if end up disagreeing.
Sure! Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: If he is executed, it will be regretable (to me), but I won't lose much sleep.
I dunno, I can't hate anyone enough to condemn them to death*. Which doesn't mean I want this guy to ever see the outside of a prison ever again.
I don't want him abused in prison; I don't even care if we hope holding him the rest of his life is worse than the death penalty. I'm not big on vengeance. I leave that up to those who are more qualified than me.
-Bok
*I believe that it can be justified to kill in individual self-defense, but in those situations we aren't left with many other options.
quote: When I think on it, like my earlier answer, I want to cause them extreme pain in creative ways. But I don't want to kill them.
Maybe that is hate. But then why do I not feel like I should kill them?
-Bok
I've been mulling over this comments and I think that for me the issue isn't that I couldn't hate anyone enough to wish them dead, but that I believe that I shouldn't hate anyone that much. I do get angry at people and I do on occasion feel hateful to people, but I see this as a character flaw. Whenever I act in anger, I regret it. Jesus taught "Love your enemies", and I aspire to follow that. He also that when we fail to forgive another, we have the greater sin (LDS scripture). I do not always succeed in following these commands, but I aspire toward them.
Second, I consider life to be sacred, all life. That includes the life of criminals. The sacredness of life is not the result of our virtues as individuals, it is a gift of god that none can earn or deserve. Because life is a gift from God, I believe that only God has the authority to take that gift. Killing is wrong. And while I can see making an exception to that for self defense, I can't see making an exception because of a crime. Wrong doesn't become right just because someone else has done it. If some one were mean or nasty, it wouldn't justify my being mean an nasty back. When we, as a society, kill killers we are in effect saying that their immoral action has made it moral to kill. I know that some people accept that, I do not.
I don't think that justice is ever truly possible in any human forum. I believe that justice is the domain of God, because only God has the knowledge and power to be just. I can't see that executing Mousaui would in anyway balance the acts of terror he conspired to commit. The goal of any human legal system, should be to prevent and deter crime. Attempting to be just can contribute to those goals and so justice is not irrelevant, it simply shouldn't be the ultimate goal of the legal system. Life in prison is a very serious punishment. In many ways, I think I'd find it worse than execution. It is more than sufficient to keep him from commiting another such crime.
The only argument for the death penalty which has any moral standing in my eyes, is the argument that it deters murders. I have looked at many studies of this issue, and come to the conclusion that there is no compelling evidence that the death penalty has a deterent effect in any situation. Given that suicide is a favored tactic of current terror groups, it is difficult to believe that the threat of a death penalty would deter them when it doesn't deter others.
If we execute Mousaui, we risk making him into a martyr and provoking more atttacks to avenge his death. If we keep him in prison, we risk the possiblity of terrorist acts to free him. Even if we sentence him to death, we risk attacks or kidnappings on the eve of his execution. There are no safe choices. We must choose based on what we believe to be moral and not on how terrorist might respond.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Law should be based on justice, not vengence, and executions are inherently vengful. I could point out that every western democracy has banned executions, I could qoute Shakespeare, the Bible and Foucault, but I feel that my energies would be wasted.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I believe that we would be within our rights to kill this man.
Having said that, I hope we do not do so for the following reasons:
1) His death will prove to be a rallying point for others. I understand that if we keep him in prison someone at some time may take hostages and try to bargain to have this man released. But they could also be doing that now, no? It's not like the threat of hostage-taking increases over time, or because of a life sentence. And, killing him doesn't stop people from rallying in his name, or taking/killing hostages, or what have you. Irrationality is irrationality. I see no good coming from his death in this respect.
2) His actions and thoughts are not those of a sane person. I understand that behind his particular insanity may be religious zealotry, hatred, and a host of other things that give us reasons to declare him sane. But is he really? By what standard would we declare him sane? (and yes, I know the burden of proof for an insanity defense is in the other direction, but we're talking here about a man already found guilty and now we need to decide whether to execute him. I think, in that case, the burden of proof for sanity ought to be reversed, and it should be necessary to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is sane and capable of making moral choices before we decide to kill him. In this case, I think there's enough doubt as to his sanity to make me much less willing to call for his death.
3) State sponsored death does not serve a useful purpose in our society, IMO. I know it's got nothing specific to do with this case, but either this is a true statement for all cases, or it is a false statement. Economically, it costs us more to go through the mandatory steps to execute someone than it does to keep them incarcerated. Even if that economic argument fails, there's still the other argument about meaningful deterrent. The death penalty is not a meaningful deterrent in any crime for which it is meted out. I think, specfic to terrorism, it's especially meaningless. State ordered killing of a suicidal terrorist when that person is already removed from society to a point where they can't possibly do any more harm is bad for us as a society. Retribution is bad for us as a society too, but that's a different issue that probably needs a thread all its own.
4) We do not understand the enemy we face in this new reality of terrorism brought to America. This is an opportunity to study a man who became willing to die for the cause of harming people. To the extent that we could learn something from him that could potentially help us to avoid or identify others like him, killing him is a collossal waste of what may be unique opportunity. Certainly we're going to have a hard time interviewing others like him.
Put in the balance, my desire for his death as partial payment for the lives he helped to snuff out is just not measuring up. I can't call for his death even though his attitude makes me angry, scared and frustrated.
If he were to die tomorrow or in 80 years, it makes no difference to me. I would not feel more sad if he keeled over tomorrow. I feel as sad as can already. Neither will his death alleviate my sorrow in any way. I won't sleep better at night. It serves no purpose to order his death. And, I think, there's a price to pay for killing other humans, even if they are monsters. Once you've taken away their immediate ability to do others harm, then there is no purpose in killing them.
If he'd been caught in the act and taken down by an officer of the law, that is a different situation entirely, and law enforcement officers are charged by our society with the onerous duty of making life and death decisions in crisis situations.
This situation is no longer a crisis. Ergo, there is no excuse for state-ordered death. I do not wish to deputize a person to kill in my name in such a situation.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I'm against the death penalty, even in this case.
But as for what Bob said about them taking hostages and whatnot...it's not like they'd execute him immediately, anyway. I mean, he probably wouldn't be executed for ten years, or something. So either way, there'd be an opportunity to take hostages to try to force his release.
-pH
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
quote:4) We do not understand the enemy we face in this new reality of terrorism brought to America. This is an opportunity to study a man who became willing to die for the cause of harming people. To the extent that we could learn something from him that could potentially help us to avoid or identify others like him, killing him is a collossal waste of what may be unique opportunity. Certainly we're going to have a hard time interviewing others like him.
What's there to learn? He's not a very complicated puzzle. All we need to know is that he's and other like him want us to die or convert. We in the west aren't the ones who need to struggle to understand the other side. Plus we've got many more in Guantanemo to "interview."
I appreciate all your moral arguements against capital punishment. They are valid, but one is either confortable with the idea or not.
As for whether his conviction would lead to hostage taking, or whether his death would lead to reprisals, there is nothing we could do to confront terrorists that would not lead to them to taking offense. They'll take hostages and kill innocents no matter what we do.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think the state has the moral authority to execute certain criminals in the context of a criminal justice system that provides fair and effective due process. And I think this defendant qualifies as one of those certain criminals.
However, I tend to agree it's not necessary in America at this time.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
People are inherently valuable. This is, I think, what it means to say "life is sacred". Unforutnately, it is rare to really appreciate this for anyone but your immediate family. Most people do see how their spouse or their children are inherently sacred though. Most people would not prefer their loved ones to be dead no matter what their loved ones did. Most people would love their spouse and children no matter what. This is what it means to inherently value human beings, and it is the attitude that we should hold towards everyone when we are trying to judge them fairly. I believe it is how God approaches every individual human being, and how he has called us to approach our neighbors - to love them.
God has the judgement and omniscience to know with certainty whether killing one person will help save others. We, however, lack that judgement. I do NOT believe we can figure out when it is truly right to kill someone and when it just seems right. Given this, it is unwise to gamble with the lives of human beings - to kill them based solely on our extremely limited judgement, no matter how obvious we think it is that we'd be better off killing them. For this reason, I don't think we should kill anyone, if we can ever avoid it.
Note also that people cannot choose to give up their own value. It is not a question of choice, and it is not a question of whether or not you deserve it. You are valuable whether you like it or not. This is why it is wrong to commit suicide. You may want to die, but your life is too valuable to even allow you to choose to take it away yourself. In the same way, you can't choose to do anything that will make you no longer deserving of life. It's not that sort of right, the sort that you control and can lose. It's the sort of right that you have no matter what, like it or not, because you are that valuable no matter what.
If you would personally execute your children if they did what Moussaoui did, so be it. But I would not. I'd care about them too much to do that, if I could avoid it. This is the attitude to take towards all people. If you give them the punishment you'd give to someone you really love who committed that crime, then you have respected their value as a human being, and can know that you are only giving them the degree of punishment that you absolutely must. Of course you don't let one of your children free if he is going to kill your other children, whom you also love. But you also don't give him a harsher punishment than he needs to get. And you don't waste his life if you don't absolutely have to.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:All we need to know is that he's and other like him want us to die or convert. We in the west aren't the ones who need to struggle to understand the other side.
It's certainly easy to dehumanize your enemy, but it is also counterproductive to resolving the situation. Instead of "die or convert", I see the mantra more as "stop screwing with us or die." Several of the complaints of terrorists are legitimate. Our foreign policies toward the Middle East are far from kind. This in no way legitimizes their actions. It does however make them human beings that we should strive to understand. I believe at least part of the answer lies in finding common ground, not in creating a wider and wider gulf. When we think about what motivates a terrorist, I think we should look at what they see as problems. If after analyzing it we agree that it is a problem, we need to change it. This isn't bending to terrorism, it's trying to become the just people that we strive to be. If we only respond to violence and hate with more violence and hate, nothing good will happen.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: I understand not wanting to execute anyone when there's the slightest question of guilt, but this guy is guilty in spades and eager to do it again.
I'm curious to know if this man would be an exception for even the most ardent anti-death penalty people. Pix [/QB]
Seems to me that if your against the death pentalty because you think its simply wrong to kill people, then it really doesn't matter how bad the criminal is, or how dangerous. It owuld be one thing to kill him while he attacking you, but now that he is captured, for me, that's it. You just don't kill people.
I wonder at how difficult that concept is for pro-death penalty people. I don't think you, Pix, are confused, but I have heard the ridiculous attempts time and again to catch an anti-death person out on some extreme hypothetical: "What if he was the worst person EVEER EVER! And you KNEW he would kill more people!" For me it doesn't matter, because if you could execute someone for one crime, you might as well do it for another, or any crime (Yes the lame slippry-slope claim).
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
My opposition to the death penalty has nothing to do with whether or not the criminal "deserves" it. So no, I would not make an exception in this case.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:They are valid, but one is either comfortable with the idea or not.
I think that's incredibly dismissive. If you can make this into an issue of personal preference rather than something that really is about essential moral choices, then we're all free to do what we are most comfortable with.
Except, that leaves you getting your way, and people who oppose the death penalty completely marginalized.
Regarding the statements about there being nothing to learn, I think that's also a fairly narrow and rushed judgement. Would it harm you or America in any way if we at least tried to learn something before we execute people who we think deserve it?
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
quote: I'm against the death penalty, even in this case.
But as for what Bob said about them taking hostages and whatnot...it's not like they'd execute him immediately, anyway. I mean, he probably wouldn't be executed for ten years, or something. So either way, there'd be an opportunity to take hostages to try to force his release.
-pH
I feel the exact same way. And about hostage taking - I don't believe al Qaeda wants him. I think once they recognized that he has a mental illness they cut him out of the 9/11 plan. So, he knew a little, but not the final details.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
To answer the OP, no, I would not make an exception and say it's acceptable to me to execute this man. The isea os state sponsered execution sickens me in a way that a murderer doesn't. A man who murders is a sign of a sick man- state execution is a sick state.
Posted by katdog42 (Member # 4773) on :
I, too, cannot believe that it is "right" to kill someone just because the state says it's okay. State legislated death is still murder, in my opinion. In a time when sufficient means are available to lock him up, treat him decently, and keep him from doing further harm to anyone, I think there is absolutely no reason to kill him.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I was going to write how I felt but dkw already expressed my own view, so I'll just quote her.
quote:My opposition to the death penalty has nothing to do with whether or not the criminal "deserves" it. So no, I would not make an exception in this case.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think it's a mistake to stop viewing them as generally rational human beings trying to acheive their goals. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are not rational men.
I'm not sure the ones on our side are either, nor should they be.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Also, we should look at what it does to us, that we indulge in the death penalty. People cheer and wave signs with ghoulish glee. If it is ever necessary to kill anyone it should be a reason for great sorrow, a funeral rather than a party. I think that is most telling of all. It has a negative effect on the American people, on all of us, when we execute criminals.
CT is right that the most effective and wisest thing would be to keep him in prison but treat him decently. Then we would be proving them all wrong, the things they think about us. If we gleefully execute him, we take ourselves down to their level, and even go a small way toward proving them right about us, in my opinion.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
The question is not so much who deserves to die, in which case I would have to cite the rather unusal source of Sweeney Todd ("We all deserve to die/ even you, Mrs. Lovett, even I.") But rather, who deserves to kill.
From a logical perspective, saying "X is wrong, and must be punished by doing X to the one who commited the origional X" makes absolutly no sense whatsover.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
The more I read about this guy, the more I've come to believe that he is not sane.
[ April 18, 2006, 09:42 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Tresopax, I largely agree with the substance of your post. I think where we part ways is that I believe that a person can, indeed, do some things that make them no longer deserving of life--most particularly, murder. A person who not only ceases to regard life as sacred, but who comes to regard it as something to be destroyed--which is what a murderer is--is a deadly danger to the rest of life. Although it must be done with care, I see no more harm done in executing such a person than in dismantling a nuclear bomb. Or, perhaps more accurately, excising and "killing" a cancerous tumor--such a tumor is life, in one sense, but death in another, more important one.
That is why, by the way, punishment is reserved to the state. An individual human, acting on his own initiative, has the dangerous tendency of acting from the wrong motivations and losing track of what is allowed and what is not. Such a person could easily go from "freelance execution" to simple murder of whomever he considers "guilty". But by setting a seriies of impartial rules--this person must not be executed; this other person must be--we remove the human element, the emotional motivation. This is the difference between vengeance and justice.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:From a logical perspective, saying "X is wrong, and must be punished by doing X to the one who commited the origional X" makes absolutly no sense whatsover.
So we can't put kidnappers in jail?
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: I understand not wanting to execute anyone when there's the slightest question of guilt, but this guy is guilty in spades and eager to do it again.
I'm curious to know if this man would be an exception for even the most ardent anti-death penalty people.
This does not change my stance on the death penalty - I am still against it in this case.
And the reason it doesn't change is because I'm not against the death penalty because I'm worried about guilt or innocence (although obviously I don't want innocent people getting killed) nor am I anti-death penalty because I don't think people "deserve" it.
I am anti-death penalty because I believe as a society we do not have the right to, nor should we, kill people.
Regardless of the certainty of their guilt, or the heinousness of their crime.
[Or, I could have just quoted dkw. ]
Posted by theresa51282 (Member # 8037) on :
Pixiest, to answer your original question, I am absolutely against executing this man or any other man. To me there are several reasons why I oppose the death penalty that have little to do with guilt.
I believe that all life is valuable and that humans should not take the life of others no matter how wonderful they think there reasoning is. If human life is to be valued so much that we have this rage against those who take it, why then would we not want to protect that life as well?
The death penalty teaches the wrong lesson to everyone. Nothing is gained by the death of this other. It doesn't bring anyone back. It doesn't create any more good in society. It doesn't demonstrate who to deal with those who wrong us. Violence begets more violence. States with the death penalty have higher rates of violence. Immediately following an execution there are statistically signficant increases in the rates of violent crimes. People who witness violence are more likely to commit violence themselves. Justifying situational violence blurs the line for people between right and wrong.
There is nothing to be learned from a dead man. Keeping people alive and attempting to discover what is causing the violence against innocence and how best to avoid it in the future is a far better use.
Finally, there is absolutely no way to draft a statute that only allows the guilty to get the deathpenalty and never gets a falsely accused person in the crosshairs. I know that any one case there can be overwhelming evidence but there is no way to know exactly where to draw that line. If I line was created, I have a feeling it would like create an incentive for the criminal to do even more damage to prevent the death penalty from happening such as killing witnesses. If even one innocent person is put to death, the death penalty in my book is a miserable failur.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
quote: If you cannot hate evil men and the evil that they do, if you cannot hate terrorists like Moussaoui and BenLadeen, then how firm can one's purpose be?
Let's have a look at people like Hitler and bin Laden. Their actions are driven by hate, therefore, I would pose the question, what good does hating them back do? Does it make you a better person? Does it stop their actions? Would any actions driven by your/our own hatred stop their hatred, or prevent hatred from festering among their sympathizers?
Understand, I am not saying that I enjoy what people like them do, but I strongly believe in one of the Buddha's sayings:
"Hate never yet dispelled hate, only love can dispell hate.
All love life, all fear death Knowing this, why do you quarrel?"
And furthermore, how is extreme dislike or antipathy not derived from fear or sense of injury? (Again, trying to understand, not insult)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hate cannot dispel hate, that is true. But hatred, like all human emotions, has its uses. A strongly motivated hatred can lead to the accomplishment of many things, Epictetus.
Suggesting it does not harms your argument that hatred is ineffective and a bad choice, because obviously it's not useless. It does have its merits. Rather you might have better luck if you point out that the results of hatred are rarely if ever short-term, often harmful in the long-run, and very very risky.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I'm with dkw. I am also with Gandalf.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
And when he kills again, as he has sworn to do what then?
If we lock him up for life, what happens when he kills someone in prison? Maybe someone guilty of a lesser crime (most crimes are lesser than mass murder.) Maybe someone innocent all together.
Ethically, you are complicit in their murders.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
There are ways to keep him away from the general population.
How are we not also ethically complicit in all prison murders? Is it only "mass murderers" who are likely to kill in prison? Rapists, gang bangers and garden variety murderers never do? Or do you advocate the death penalty for all who have the potential to murder in prison?
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: My opposition to the death penalty has nothing to do with whether or not the criminal "deserves" it. So no, I would not make an exception in this case.
What dkw said.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:And when he kills again, as he has sworn to do what then?
If we lock him up for life, what happens when he kills someone in prison? Maybe someone guilty of a lesser crime (most crimes are lesser than mass murder.) Maybe someone innocent all together.
Ethically, you are complicit in their murders.
I thought you were an ethical libertarian, Pix? On that approach, there is no ethical obligation to protect others unless you've entered a binding agreement to do so.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Refusing to execute someone who has sworn to kill others and then does so, despite your trying short of their execution, does not make you complicit in the murders which happen.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I know of 5 reasons to consider the death penalty for Mousaui. Please correct me if there are more.
1) Revenge. He helped kill thousands of people. It is only fitting, some beleive, that we kill him back.
I am not a firm believer in revenge, especially not revenge for its own sake. As such, let us move on.
2) Deterence. Killing a killer convinces others not to kill. This assumes that most murderers do their own rationale cost benefits analysis and decide what is best. If I kill Joe, then the odds are I will die too. Obvious, this is not the case for Suicide Terrorists. Even for sane and rational murderers, the true odds for such an analysis are not taken into account. They often either do not think, or think that they will get away with it.
3) As an anti-terrorist manuever. In this particular case, being hard on terrorists is not a deterent for individuals. What we are striving to do is prove that we are not soft on terror. Both Ben Laden and Hussein have reportedly considered the US a paper tiger, all gruff and no guts. They did not think we had the guts to fight them and kill them. Allowing Mousaui to live many officials fear, will reinforce the US is Weak attitude.
I believe that a better political answer is to keep Mousaui alive, and treat him as the pathetic, humourous, laughing stock that he has become. Let him rant and rave all he wants, weaving delusional fantasies to be reported around the world. Just make sure we add the context that this is average for an Al-Queda terrorist, that only fools and idiots join and die for them. We have not a silver bullet to end Al-Queda, but one small lever to cut into their recruiting drive. Don't kill it, use it.
4) Cost: It is cheaper to kill Mousaui than to allow him to live in prison. I can't argue against this one unless we get into the political costs.
5)He will kill again. This is the last argument made by Pixiest. It states that if you allow A to live, and A kills B then you are responsible for B's death.
There are several problems with this logic. It requires us to kill A not for what A has done, but for what A might do. At what murderous potential do we kill another person? Do we kill A if he says he will kill again? If he has killed in the past? If we think that "his type" is prone to kill? How do we know if A will ever murder anyone? And if we are wrong, if A will have never killed B, then we are the guilty one.
Does that give A the right to kill us, because he knows, or believes, that we will kill him because we know or believe that he will kill B?
That is the logic of every hate-mongering group I've ever seen. White Supremicists do not recruit members by saying that other races are beneath them, well, not any longer. They recruit by saying "We gotta kill them because they are planning on killing us. Do you want to be responsible for the deaths of your family because you didn't kill them first?"
And the African American gangs say the same thing, just changing whom is going to kill whom first. The same goes for the Latino's and the others. In Rowanda the machette's were swung not to prove one tribe better than the other, but in order to save one group from the known murderous tendancies of the other. Shi'ite's are killing Sunni's in Iraq out of the fear that the Sunni's are killing Shi'ites.
No, going over my list, I see only two true reasons that Mousaui should die--Revenge and Money. Neither seem morally superior.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
You might consider this nothing but a trivial re-wording of #1, but I don't:
Justice. He helped kill thousands of people. It is only fitting that he lose his life for doing so.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Although it must be done with care, I see no more harm done in executing such a person than in dismantling a nuclear bomb. Or, perhaps more accurately, excising and "killing" a cancerous tumor--such a tumor is life, in one sense, but death in another, more important one.
But nuclear bombs and tumors are not people, and have no value independent of their usefulness. But people do have a great inherent value, distinct from their usefulness to the rest of us. And thus killing a person costs the inherent value of that person, while destroying a tumor or bomb costs us nothing but whatever use that tumor or bomb may have had to us. This is why I think executing a person is much much more harmful.
If you could be certain a person would kill again, and that there is no possible other alternative way to stop them from doing so, then it might be worthwhile to execute people. But because these people tend to look a lot like other seemingly dangerous people who actually are not planning on killing again, and because lesser punishments almost always are sufficient to stop a person from being a threat, I don't believe that human beings are capable of figuring out how to separate cases where execution would be productive from the many more cases where execution mere appears productive to the non-omniscient.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Justice. He helped kill thousands of people. It is only fitting that he lose his life for doing so.
I don't see how the third sentence follows from the second, nor how it would be inherently unjust not to kill him (as your rephrase implies).
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Yeah, what's so just about bad things happening to bad people?
A lot of people seem to have this feeling MPH just expressed, that independent of any considerations about deterrence or prevention of future crime, it's good to harm people who've done wrong. Though I share the gut feeling to a certain extent, I don't see the rationale for it.
If you know that someone will never commit another crime, and that hurting him won't create an example for anyone, how can it be just to hurt or kill him anyway? It won't make anyone freer, or prevent the infringement of anyone's freedom. It won't increase the amount of happiness in the world -- indeed, it will only decrease it.
I guess that as I see it, the only way to justify hurting or killing someone is by pointing out that it serves some important purpose. Just acts are acts that make the world better in some way. How does hurting or killing Mousaui make the world any better?
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Dagonee, the situations not being exactly the same, your question is an interesting one. But with an easy answer.
Prison should not be about punishing, it should be about rehabilitation. If that sounded like a soudbite it is becouse I have given up hope on this discusion, wherin people do not even seem to read eachothers posts.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Justice. He helped kill thousands of people. It is only fitting that he lose his life for doing so.
I don't see how the third sentence follows from the second, nor how it would be inherently unjust not to kill him (as your rephrase implies).
One concept of justice is that if you break the rules, you suffer the consequences.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
That doesn't really help me understand. Destineer's post is apt, as are his questions.
"If you break the rules, you suffer the consequences" does not in any way imply that execution is the only just consequence for certain crimes.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Some people think that the proper punishment for killing people is death, and that since he killed people, it is justice for him to die.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Some people think that the proper punishment for killing people is death...
Why do they think this? That's the question I'm asking. I don't take "an eye for an eye" as axiomatic.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I don't know. Go ask one of them.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Dagonee, the situations not being exactly the same, your question is an interesting one. But with an easy answer.
Prison should not be about punishing, it should be about rehabilitation. If that sounded like a soudbite it is becouse I have given up hope on this discusion, wherin people do not even seem to read eachothers posts.
If you're interested in the topic, you might want to check out the Crime and Mental Illness for a pretty good discussion on the purposes of punishment.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:One concept of justice is that if you break the rules, you suffer the consequences.
This is one of those cases where we determine the consequences.
____
Aside: I do think, to an alarming degree, we've annexed too many of our unattractive characteristics to institutions. You can call it the division of labor. If a business perpetrates a fraud to increase its profits, it's habit not to blame the people running the business as much as taking for granted that, "That's what businesses do." Salesmen and advertising people are notorious for this, and availing themselves of that excuse. We give these dispensations to politicians and military soldiers, also.
I'm not going to debate the existence of this phenomenon. It's simply the case. I am a little hazy on why we do it. I think the reason we are so quick to shunt all of the humanity's morally deficient characteristics to a procedure or bureaucracy is because that way, the people who inhabit those institutions can still go home and have a healthy conception of themselves.
If Mousaoui is executed, it's because we killed him.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Some people think that the proper punishment for killing people is death, and that since he killed people, it is justice for him to die.
Even if you go with this, though, he did not kill anyone. You've moved from "helped kill perople" to "killed people." I realize it's a matter of opinion, to an extent, if he helped or not. . . I personally think that statement is still to strong. But there is no way you can say he actually killed anyone. If we're going for an eye for an eye, you have no justification for putting him to death. I'm sure he would have liked to have been on one of the planes. But how can you justify killing someone for wanting to kill others?
I'm arguing morality, not legality. There is obviously a legal argument for the death penalty in this case. But even if I believed in capital punishment for murders, I could not support the death penalty for a man who didn't actually murder anyone.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
mph,
Can the people's need for "justice" be served without the death of the offender?
I submit it can. Seems to me that that the word "justice" is very often confounded with retribution and is used to condone state-sponsored acts that are not necessary nor are they in the people's best interest.
I think that only the human need for revenge (or rather, retribution) requires that the consequences of causing a death are death.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
"Retribution" is part of justice, Bob.
The word seems to have a much more negative connotation around these parts than it deserves.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Retributive punishment need not be lethal.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Of course not. I'm making a more general statement about the seeming misunderstanding of what retribution is. It is not vengeance, it's intricately wound up with justice, and yet it keeps being almost casually dismissed as obviously wrong.
Whether death is just retribution is another question. But the fact that death can only serve retribution is not enough to make the death unjust.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:"Retribution" is part of justice, Bob.
That is not a universally accepted premise.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:"Retribution" is part of justice, Bob.
Err, no it's not. It's part of some theories of justice, but it's not part of many others.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Err, no it's not. It's part of some theories of justice, but it's not part of many others.
It is unless you've redefined the word.
It means "that which is justly deserved."
If you think something isn't justly deserved, then that thing isn't retribution.
It doesn't mean "vengence." It doesn't mean "punishment."
In other words, some theorists might propose that retribution doesn't exist. But that can't say things that are retribution aren't justice.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:"Retribution" is part of justice, Bob.
That is not a universally accepted premise.
You can't "confound" retribution with justice. If something is retribution it is, by definition, part of justice.
If that act isn't part of justice, then it's not retribution.
It might be the case that set of things that can be called retribution is zero. But, if that's the case, then Bob is incorrect in calling the thing he says isn't part of justice "retribution."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, Many theories of justice reject the idea of retribution. It is not part of these theories. Some people don't accept doing bad things to those who've done wrong for no other reason than they've done wrong as a given.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, Many theories of justice reject the idea of retribution. It is not part of these theories. Some people don't accept doing bad things to those who've done wrong for no other reason than they've done wrong as a given.
Then they believe that retribution doesn't exist. And therefore, the things Bob is saying are retribution and not justice, are not actually retribution.
it's a perfectly good word. There's no need to mess with it's definition to make a point.
Oh, and "doing bad things to those who've done wrong for no other reason than they've done wrong" is not what retribution is.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Dag,
I'll go with Merriam Webster Thesaurus on this:
quote:Entry Word: retribution Function: noun Text: the act or an instance of paying back an injury with an injury <the villain kidnapped the superhero's girlfriend in retribution for overthrowing his plans to destroy the city> -- see REVENGE
I think the "see Revenge" at the bottom pretty much sums up my understanding of modern usage of the word "retribution"
I don't think "justice" requires repaying "injury for injury"
It may be possible for society to view revenge as "just punishment" but the two are separable, and I think normal usage is such that the words "revenge" and "retribution" are much stronger in connoting matching the "punishment" to the exact nature of the crime -- "an eye for an eye", than is the word "justice" which is broader and less strict in implying that the punishment be of exactly the same nature as the original act.
At any rate, that is how I am using the term, and I think M-W is in agreement with me.
We could argue semantics, or we could try to puzzle out whether "justice" demands a death in this instance, or if that feeling is coming from some other human emotion or need.
I submit that it is.
If you'd rather not call it retribution, then call it revenger. Or call it "squiggle" for all I care.
The point is that justice could be served in many ways other than the death of this man.
I suspect that people's need for revenge or retribution (or "squiggle") could not.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't accept your definition of retribution any more than I accept your defintion of justice. Retribution means to pay back, nothing more. You may want to include in this "only when it's just", but that's not actually the definition of the word.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Oh, and "doing bad things to those who've done wrong for no other reason than they've done wrong" is not what retribution is.
Err...as far as I can tell, yes it is. Retributive justice is the theory that the act of doing something bad makes it just to have something bad done to you. This punishment can be mixed with a whole mess of other motives, such as preventative or rehabilitation, but that's the meaning of retributive justice. It's often known as paying one's debt to society.
Perhaps you'd care to share why this isn't so.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'll go with Merriam Webster Thesaurus on this:
I'll see your merriam webster and raise you dictionary.com:
quote:ret·ri·bu·tion Audio pronunciation of "retribution" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rtr-byshn) n.
1. Something justly deserved; recompense. 2. Something given or demanded in repayment, especially punishment. 3. Theology. Punishment or reward distributed in a future life based on performance in this one.
Or, we could go with the definitions that are used in the actual field.
quote:It may be possible for society to view revenge as "just punishment" but the two are separable
Which is why there's a word "revenge" and there's a word "retribution." They're separate concepts and they have separate words.
There are people who argue that revenge is retribution. Many of them support the death penalty. And, of course, many opponents of the death penalty then sieze on that definition and come out against the idea of just dessert in general.
Similarly, there are those who appreciate the distinction and don't believe the death penalty is warranted in this case.
quote:We could argue semantics
It's not semantics, it's an important concept. Does the concept of moral debt exist? If so, what is it.
Beyond that, calling me on "semantics" when you spent a whole post distinguishing between two different words is really cheap.
quote:I don't accept your definition of retribution any more than I accept your defintion of justice. Retribution means to pay back, nothing more. You may want to include it as only when it's just, but that's not actually the definition of the word.
There are indeed lots of people who like to redefine the terms used by those who disagree with them. There is an incredibly large set of literature about the distinction between retribution and revenge and the importance of retribution as a means of keeping criminal punishment schemes from being too harsh.
Just because you find it more convenient to use an unnuanced defintion to casually dismiss the concept doesn't mean I have to play the game.
quote:Err...as far as I can tell, yes it is. Retributive justice is the theory that the act of doing something bad makes it just to have something bad done to you. This punishment can be mixed with a whole mess of other motives, such as preventative or rehabilitation, but that's the meaning of retributive justice. It's often known as paying one's debt to society. Perhaps you'd care to share why this isn't so.
The key principle of retribution is proportionality - that is, that the limit of what the state can do in response to an act is related to the moral wrong encompassed by that act.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm unclear as to what point you think that proved. Perhaps you could offer some elaboration with your scolding.
edit: Oh you did. Proportionality is important, but I don't see how that invalidates what I said. It is, in fact, doing bad stuff to people with the sole justification that they did bad stuff themselves, yes? And, to people who reject the idea that this is just, proportionality is completely irrelevant.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:There are two distinct "flavors" of retributive justice. The classical definition embraces the idea that the amount of punishment must be proportional to the amount of harm caused. A more recent version, advocated by Michael Davis, dismisses this idea and replaces it with the idea that the amount of punishment must be proportional to the amount of unfair advantage gained by the wrongdoer. Davis introduced this version of retributive justice in the early 1980s, at a time when retributive justice was making a resurgence within the philosophy of law community, perhaps due to the practical failings of reform theory in the previous decades. This was to many a breath of fresh air into a theory that had been all but abandoned decades prior, particularly in the United States. There currently appears to be a greater amount of discussion about the difference between these two flavors of retribution than between retribution itself and the other theories of punishment.
quote:The idea that we should treat people as they deserve is commonly accepted. We do not think that war criminals should be allowed to live carefree lives after committing unspeakable crimes against humanity.
However, there is a dangerous tendency to slip from retributive justice to an emphasis on revenge. Vengeance is a matter of retaliation, of getting even with those who have hurt us. It can also serve to teach wrongdoers how it feels to be treated in certain ways. Like retribution, revenge is a response to wrongs committed against innocent victims and reflects the proportionality of the scales of justice. But revenge focuses on the personal hurt involved and typically involves anger, hatred, bitterness, and resentment. Such emotions are potentially quite destructive. Because these intense feelings often lead people to over-react, resulting punishments can be excessive and cause further antagonism.
In addition, punishments dictated by revenge do not satisfy principles of proportionality or consistency. This is because revenge leads to punishments that vary according to the degree of anger provoked. Wrongs that do not provoke anger will receive no response. Acts that provoke a great deal of anger will, on the other hand, provoke an overly intense response and lead to reciprocal acts of violence.
For example, resentment about past injustice can "motivate people who otherwise live peaceably to engage in torture and slaughter of neighbors identified as members of groups who committed past atrocities."[4] Devastating inter-group violence in the form of mass killings can result.
It is not surprising that revenge seldom brings the relief that victims seek. The victim simply gets caught up in feelings of hatred.[5] Vengeful motives lead individuals to exact more than necessary, causing even further harm and setting in motion a downward spiral of violence.[6] Once there is this sort of violence break over, it is difficult to break out of the cycle of revenge and escalation. Overly harsh punishments do not make society any more secure and only serve to increase the level of harm done. In addition, in an atmosphere of heightened violence, there is little room for apology or forgiveness for wrongs committed.
Many believe that "the victim should not seek revenge and become a new victimizer but instead should forgive the offender and end the cycle of offense."[7] However, forgiveness does not take the place of justice or punishment, nor does it rule out giving the wrongdoer his just deserts.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm unclear as to what point you think that proved. Perhaps you could offer some elaboration with your scolding.
Me: Directly address Squick's points, including positng links to definitions relevant to the field.
You: Ignore everything I said.
OK, whatever, Squick.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, You may want to see my edit.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, From your first link:
quote:Criticism
Some say that retribution is unethical and that two wrongs do not make a right. While the Christian Ideal is to "turn the other cheek" before seeking retribution for a wrong, it is hard to reconcile biblical accounts of "just stonings" with the latter forgiveness embodied by Jesus. On the other hand, this effect can be attributed to other justifications for the offense, rather than simple retaliation. Some subscribe to The Golden Rule rather than retaliation.
And your second link is written by someone who clearly accepts the punihsment is part of justice:
quote:Many believe that "the victim should not seek revenge and become a new victimizer but instead should forgive the offender and end the cycle of offense."[7] However, forgiveness does not take the place of justice or punishment, nor does it rule out giving the wrongdoer his just deserts.
. I never argued that people didn't have this as their basic assumption, just that many theories of justice didn't.
edit: Proportionality distinguishes retribution from revenge, but it is not a central feature for those who disagree with the basic assumption that people who did something bad incur some sort of debt that can only be paid by having bad things done to them.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It is, in fact, doing bad stuff to people with the sole justification that they did bad stuff themselves, yes?
That's like saying the sole justification for killing in self defense is that they tried to kill you first. The right to life, personal autonomy, and, yes, just dessert, all play a role in the justifications for self defense.
Similarly, there are lots of moral principles between "X did wrongful act Y" and "society should punish X." Not everyone agrees on the steps between them. Condensing it down to the "sole justification" you did is not accurate.
Retribution is the idea that something is due as a matter of justice. If nothing is ever due as a matter of justice, then there's no such thing as retribution.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
And many people believe that there is not something due as a matter of justice, and therefore reject the idea of retribution. To them, this makes actions taken in the name of retribution akin to vengence, although, as you have been so good as to point out, it is proportional vengence.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I never argued that people didn't have this as their basic assumption, just that many theories of justice didn't.
I never said you did. What I did say is that if someone thinks that retribution is not part of justice, then they think retribution does not exist. Retribution is intimately tied to the idea of punishment being deserved as a matter of justice. If there is no punishment that is deserved as a matter of justice, then there is no retribution.
quote:edit: Proportionality distinguishes retribution from revenge, but it is not a central feature for those who disagree with the basic assumption that people who did something bad incur some sort of debt that can only be paid by having bad things done to them.
But it is a central feature for those who hold a theory of criminal punishment which includes a retributive component.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And many people believe that there is not something due as a matter of justice, and therefore reject the idea of retribution.
Finally! The clouds part!
quote:To them, this makes actions taken in the name of retribution akin to vengence, although, as you have been so good as to point out, it is proportional vengence.
No. It means, to them, that those who believe in retribution are wrong about its existence, and that punishments carried out in the name of retribution will actually be revenge - not retribution.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Just because someone doesn't include retribution in their theory of justice doesn't mean that it doesn't exist as a fact of the world that they live in. The thing you took Bob to task for was saying that acts of retribution seemed often to serve no purpose other than to fulfill people's need for vengence.
Regardles of whether or not Bob accepts that punishment becomes mandated after someone does something has little bearing on whether or not, in society's eyes, acts of retribution are carried out. So, I'm not sure whence the disagreement.
If this whole path was a semantic argument about your definition of retribution, I still don't agree with you. Retribution means paying back (or from your link, recompense) and exists external to concerns about whether this is just or not. The specialized definition you're positing is no doubt common among people who support the idea of Retributive Justice, but it in no way fully encapsulates how the word has been and is currently used.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The thing you took Bob to task for was saying that acts of retribution seemed often to serve no purpose other than to fulfill people's need for vengence.
No. I took him to task for say that justice is often confounded with retribution.
quote:Regardles of whether or not Bob accepts that punishment becomes mandated after someone does something has little bearing on whether or not, in society's eyes, acts of retribution are carried out. So, I'm not sure whence the disagreement.
Because I'm trying to get people to at least acknowledge that "retribution" means more than "vengeance." I doubt you'd accept the dictionary definition of schizophrenia in a conversation about mental illness. Why would we accept the dictionary definition in a similarly well-developed field of moral philosophy. The word "retribution" has a lot of meaning behind it.
quote:If this whole path was a semantic argument about your definition of retribution, I still don't agree with you. Retribution means paying back (or from your link, recompense) and exists external to concerns about whether this is just or not.
Or, from my link, "Something justly deserved; recompense."
Even the idea of paying back which you keep harping on carries an implicit concept of moral valuation, else how could it be "paying back."
Revenge is "To inflict punishment in return for (injury or insult)." There's no concept of the moral weight of the original wrongdoing.
Retribution, even if we stick with your oversimplified definition, does carry the idea of moral weighing.
It's a HUGE difference, and I'd like it to be appreciated even by those who disagree with the concept.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I agree that there is a difference between retribution and vengence, but I don't agree that this difference is one of moral weighing. Rather it is, as your second link above points out, one of proportionality. Revenge still carries an implied moral weighing and conforms to the idea that those who have done wrong deserve wrong to be done to them. It just often takes a much less limited form.
Schizophrenia is a precise medical term. It is owned by a particular group of experts as a term describing a specific thing. The same is not true for retribution. It does not belong to the people who advocate Retributive Justice.
The definition you are asserting changes the common definition of the term as a foundational argument. It insinuates the idea that pay back is necessarily just. I get that this is the accepted definition among people who accept this insinuation, but it does not conform to the fullness of how this word has been and is currently being used.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Dagonee, further down in your dictionary.com link, the M-W Dictionary of Law definition is provided:
quote:n. punishment imposed (as on a convicted criminal) for purposes of repayment or revenge for the wrong committed
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Criticism
Some say that retribution is unethical and that two wrongs do not make a right. While the Christian Ideal is to "turn the other cheek" before seeking retribution for a wrong, it is hard to reconcile biblical accounts of "just stonings" with the latter forgiveness embodied by Jesus. On the other hand, this effect can be attributed to other justifications for the offense, rather than simple retaliation. Some subscribe to The Golden Rule rather than retaliation.
Wow, that's pretty poignant. Ha!
The discrepancy in quality from one Wikipedia article to the next is sometimes amazing.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I agree that there is a difference between retribution and vengence, but I don't agree that this difference is one of moral weighing. Rather it is, as your second link above points out, one of proportionality. Revenge still carries an implied moral weighing and conforms to the idea that those who have done wrong deserve wrong to be done to them. It just often takes a much less limited form.
Revenge is harm committed in response to injury or insult - both of which are defined by the recipient, neither of which have moral weight. This is exactly why I even brought this up: Bob was equating the death penalty with the needs of society.
Vengeance is from the perspective of the wronged. Justice is from the perspective of a central morality. The difference is phenomenally important.
quote:Schizophrenia is a precise medical term. It is owned by a particular group of experts as a term describing a specific thing. The same is not true for retribution. It does not belong to the people who advocate Retributive Justice.
"Schizo" is very commonly (mis)used to denote multiple personality disorder.
Both "science" and "theory" have had their definition radically changed by a group of experts who insist on precise usage within that field.
I've had people here insist that "abortion isn't murder" because it's not against the law - despite the fact that there is a definition outside the law by which it would be considered murder.
quote:The definition you are asserting changes the common definition of the term as a foundational argument.
No, it doesn't. Rather, it insists on the preservation of the actual meaning of the term within the field of inquiry, just as the Creationist Police here on Hatrack jump on the word theory when someone says evolution is "just a theory."
Retribution isn't "just" vengeance. It isn't based on the "sole justification" that harm deserves harm.
quote:I get that this is the accepted definition among people who accept this insinuation,
The equation of "retribution" with "vengeance" is a common means for those who don't except it to dismiss it out of hand.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Retribution isn't "just" vengeance. It isn't based on the "sole justification" that harm deserves harm.
Well, it sounds like it's based on the justification that a certain amount of harm deserves a certain "proportional" amount of harm. Does that sound fair?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
This is interesting. Instead of discussing the merits of including retribution in a system of justice, instead try and convince the opposition that their definition of the word is not really what they think it is!
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Bringing the topic back around to Moussaoui and the death penalty, I offer this article by Elaine Cassel for reasons why Moussaoui should not be executed.
These reasons include:
quote: His defense attorneys -- back on the case now, after the judge found him not competent to represent himself at the sentencing -- are sure to bring up the fact that FBI agents who arrested Moussaoui in August 2001 (on a visa violation when the flight school's suspicions were aroused and reported to the FBI ) did not believe he was telling them the truth and had many grounds for suspicion.
Agents believed that he was taking flight lessons in preparation for hijacking planes. They asked prosecutors for a search warrant for his computer but were denied. Prosecutors also refused to authorize a criminal investigation into Moussaoui's activities. FBI Agent Colleen Rowley testified to these events at the 9/11 Commission hearings.
The government had the means to find out more about Moussaoui prior to the attacks but did not do so. And, one has to wonder, even if Moussaoui had described the 9/11 plot in detail, would he have been believed? Would he have had more credibility with prosecutors than the FBI agents who voiced their concerns?
and
quote: Indeed, his defense attorneys had presented expert psychiatric testimony to this effect -- suggesting that he was suffering from a delusional disorder, perhaps even schizophrenia. However, U.S. District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema found the prosecution's experts more credible than those of the defense, ruled Moussaoui competent, and accepted his plea.
But in spite of Judge Brinkema's ruling, Moussaoui's competence is doubtful. Ever since his first court appearance in December 2001, his behavior in the courtroom has been erratic, marked by insults to the judge and his lawyers, rants against the United States, and boasts of martyrdom.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:This is interesting. Instead of discussing the merits of including retribution in a system of justice, instead try and convince the opposition that their definition of the word is not really what they think it is!
I agree that there's been a bit of hair-splitting in this thread, but if we're going to discuss whether a certain activity is good or bad we'd better at least know what it involves.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote: Indeed, his defense attorneys had presented expert psychiatric testimony to this effect -- suggesting that he was suffering from a delusional disorder, perhaps even schizophrenia. However, U.S. District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema found the prosecution's experts more credible than those of the defense, ruled Moussaoui competent, and accepted his plea.
But in spite of Judge Brinkema's ruling, Moussaoui's competence is doubtful. Ever since his first court appearance in December 2001, his behavior in the courtroom has been erratic, marked by insults to the judge and his lawyers, rants against the United States, and boasts of martyrdom.
He's sane there's no question about it. Brainwashed maybe, but definetly sane. If you ask me, no matter what Moussaoui says hes better off dead than alive. He is no use in a hostage exchange situation because even his own leaders don't like him. Moussaoui is perfectly sane if you ask me because while he may appear quite delusional, he is often very aware of what is going on around him. He seems eager to die but at the same time he also gives reasons for his life to be spared. If you ask me I think Moussaoui is trying his best to confuse the jury on what he wants his sentence to be. In my opinion he should get life in prison because its better for him to rot away in some jail cell and live with what he did, than to die a quick (and painful) death.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Retribution is not just the idea that "something is due" or that a moral debt is incurred. It is specifically the idea that if a person causes x amount of harm the moral debt can be paid by f(x) amount of harm caused to that person.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It is specifically the idea that if a person causes x amount of harm the moral debt can be paid by f(x) amount of harm caused to that person.
That's clearly incomplete. For one, there are many systems of retribution-based punishment that take mental state into account - something not directly related to the harm caused.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
That could be included in whatever function is chosen for f().
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:It's not semantics, it's an important concept. Does the concept of moral debt exist? If so, what is it.
Beyond that, calling me on "semantics" when you spent a whole post distinguishing between two different words is really cheap
Dag:
1) you brought it up.
2) I'm perfectly happy to accept whatever definition you want to use for "retribution"
3) My point has nothing whatsoever to do with the terms "retribution" and "revenge" and everything to do with whether justice demands the death of this man.
I'd be interested in a discussion of that.
I'm not at all interested in a semantic discussion and wouldn't have engaged in it at all except for the fact that you seemed to ignore the substance of my post, and used a definition of terms to negate my point without addressing it.
I'm not sure whether this is something you enjoy, or if it really is important to you that if a term has a strict definition in the legal profession you inject a bit of precision here. If it's that latter, that's fine. I'm always up for learning new things about the legal profession and its wonderful use of the English language.
this being Hatrack, it appears a lot more people are interested in pinning down the definitions of "justice" "retribution" and "revenge."
In which case, I just have to note that the religious definitions of the terms probably pre-date those used currently by the legal profession. So...I think Dana trumps you.
And...the main point at which M-W and dictionary.com agree is on the point about religious connotations.
Anyway, perhaps you'd like to offer some synonyms for the word "justice" and we could see how well they match with the concept of "retribution" or include that as the best possible rubric.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe:
quote: Indeed, his defense attorneys had presented expert psychiatric testimony to this effect -- suggesting that he was suffering from a delusional disorder, perhaps even schizophrenia. However, U.S. District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema found the prosecution's experts more credible than those of the defense, ruled Moussaoui competent, and accepted his plea.
But in spite of Judge Brinkema's ruling, Moussaoui's competence is doubtful. Ever since his first court appearance in December 2001, his behavior in the courtroom has been erratic, marked by insults to the judge and his lawyers, rants against the United States, and boasts of martyrdom.
He's sane there's no question about it. Brainwashed maybe, but definetly sane. If you ask me, no matter what Moussaoui says hes better off dead than alive. He is no use in a hostage exchange situation because even his own leaders don't like him. Moussaoui is perfectly sane if you ask me because while he may appear quite delusional, he is often very aware of what is going on around him. He seems eager to die but at the same time he also gives reasons for his life to be spared. If you ask me I think Moussaoui is trying his best to confuse the jury on what he wants his sentence to be. In my opinion he should get life in prison because its better for him to rot away in some jail cell and live with what he did, than to die a quick (and painful) death.
And you know this because you are a competant pscychologist who has examined him I assume.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Bob was equating the death penalty with the needs of society.
Equating...no way.
Asking if society's needs justify it...absolutely.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
Dude all you have to do is read the paper. 99% of the terrorists that come out of places like afganistan are brainwashed. What makes him different? Even Moussaoui himself brushed off the defenses arguement of insanity.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:In which case, I just have to note that the religious definitions of the terms probably pre-date those used currently by the legal profession. So...I think Dana trumps you.
I wasn't aware it was a contest about whose definition is the real one. Unless your point is that depending on which definition is the 'best' one, all arguments about it must flow from there?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I'm pretty sure that was a joke, Rakeesh.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:That could be included in whatever function is chosen for f().
I don't think that's quite fair, because mental state is another, distinct variable, which leads to far more complexity than suggested by f(x). And, yes, we could say it's really f(xy), but then I'd come up with another variable that's taken into account.
If you want to say that f(x,x1,..xn) is a discrete function with a different formula for any given value of x,x1,..xn, I'd agree.
My principle issue is that retribution is being over-simplified by those who don't believe in it.
quote:and used a definition of terms to negate my point without addressing it.
I wasn't negating your post at all. I have expressed no opinion on the conclusion that there's no benefit to executing Moussoui.
As you said, your perfectly happy using "revenge" to express that thought.
quote:it really is important to you that if a term has a strict definition in the legal profession you inject a bit of precision here
It's basically because it's come up in several recent threads and words are being used imprecisely. It is important to me, because a wide spectrum of what I believe about criminal justice has been casually swept aside with people stating the "obvious" conclusion that retribution is bad, without considering things like proportionality and the moral underpinnings of why deterrence is acceptable.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Rakeesh...it was a joke.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Yeah, what's so just about bad things happening to bad people?
I think the trouble is that there are no bad people - there is only the illusion of bad people, caused by the fact that we cannot see into the minds of others to fully understand why they do the bad things they do.
quote:It is unless you've redefined the word.
It means "that which is justly deserved."
I think the debate is not just about the word, "justice". The definitions of words are arbitrary. We are talking about the concept of justice, which is what it is and cannot be redefined. There is a good deal of disagreement on the nature of that concept, how to describe it, and how to apply it.
To simply state that it means "that which is justly deserved" suggests that there is some sort of agreement on that definition, which is very much not true. Plato spent whole books, including The Republic, to try to describe what justice is. If you want to propose a definition, it will probably take a good deal of reasoning to back it up.
Furthermore, "that which is justly deserved" is a circular way of describing justice, because it includes "justly" in it. What distinguishes "justly deserved" from "not justly deserved"? I would say the punishment that is necessary to pursue the greater good may be "justly" deserved. I would say retribution for the sake of retribution is NEVER "justly" deserved. That is not to say that retribution doesn't exist. That is just to say that retribution is inherently unjust if there is no reason to do it other than for the sake of retribution.
quote:Retribution is the idea that something is due as a matter of justice. If nothing is ever due as a matter of justice, then there's no such thing as retribution.
This is not an accurate definition of the concept of retribution. Retribution, it is saying, is whatever justice demands. But by that logic, retribution would never be unjust. Yet I think it's clear that most people conceive of retribution as a thing that is often above and beyond justice. "I want retribution" they say, but will often admit that the thing they demand is not just, but is nevertheless what they want. Similarly, as has been pointed out, many people conceive of justice as a thing that does not entail retribution. Hence "what is justly deserved" to them is not retribution, meaning retribution must mean more than simply "what is justly deserved."
I think a more accurate description of retribution is "something done to someone to pay back some moral debt they have incurred." It is different from revenge because revenge is not concerned with righting moral debts; it is about personal grudges. You can take revenge on someone who did nothing wrong, but that merely did something you didn't like. However, retribution could also different from justice because may not require payment for moral debts. It could be just to forgive moral debts.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I don't think that's quite fair, because mental state is another, distinct variable, which leads to far more complexity than suggested by f(x). And, yes, we could say it's really f(xy), but then I'd come up with another variable that's taken into account.
If you want to say that f(x,x1,..xn) is a discrete function with a different formula for any given value of x,x1,..xn, I'd agree.
Well, if you guys want to get technical..,
So long as f is given in units of harm to the wrongdoer, and for some nonzero f, the x_i don't contain any non-punishment good accomplished by the harm, I maintain that retributive justice is indefensible.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ahh, my mistake. I thought about that, but I think I channeled Porter or something. The smiley a sentence later actually led me to think, "OK, that was a joke clearly, hence the smiley...was this?" Sorry. Ahh, to be unsleep deprived Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So long as f is given in units of harm to the wrongdoer, and for some nonzero f, the x_i don't contain any non-punishment good accomplished by the harm, I maintain that retributive justice is indefensible.
Good isn't found in the variables. The good derived from a punishment is g(f(x,x1,..xn)), and it is never non-zero.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
??? NEVER non-zero?
Even when it's meted out to the wrong person.
Ooops. I'm sorry, you meant it's always zero.
LOL.
I guess I'm suffering from unsleep deprivation too.
[ April 22, 2006, 10:58 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No, I meant never zero or always non-zero.
Punishment meted out to the wrong person is clearly not retribution. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
<I note the smiley, but...>
Well...it just feels like "justice was done" right up to the point where we discover the guy was innocent all along.
I understand that from the legal definition of retribution, if it turns out the sentence was a mistake then it's automatically NOT retribution. But the point I've been making all along is that it (the punishment) was there to satisfy some baser human need (one other than justice).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There's nothing particular unique or damaging about wrongful convictions in a retributive system as opposed to others. In fact, deterrence and incapacitation are at least (I'd say more) likely to lead to a harsher sentence.
The possibility of wrongful conviction exists independent of the type of punishment to be imposed. It is a reason for tempering all types of punishment with mercy. But the wrongful conviction and subsequent punishment is not inherently there to satisfy some baser human need.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
That last sentence was independent of the point about wrongful conviction...or punishment of the wrong person.
I look at it this way: - revenge (or retribution in the common use of the term) is often satisfied by attacking people who are like or in some way (even vague way) supported the person who actually committed the crime.
- justice is not.
I look at the Iraq war as a prime example of this. Iraqis were not behind the attacks on 9/11, nor were they providing material support to the terrorists who had attacked us. And yet, in the Administration's ramp up to attacking Iraq, much was made of Saddam's supposed complicity. Later, as it became abundantly clear that Saddam had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11, that was changed to Saddam was capable of doing the same sorts of things. As that too became less certain, the change was to something like "Saddam would've liked to be capable of doing..."
Clearly, in some folks minds (including our Administrtion's), Afghanistan and targetting Al Qaeda was not enough retribution (or revenge), regardless of whether justice was served.
I know that some will try to disagree with this assessment of the progression of Administration statements on Iraq, but it is pretty well documented in the public record, and I do think it's not a stretch to talk about it in terms of revenge (or retribution).
Now, we have this guy who was kicked out of the local "cell" for being too unstable. He had knowledge of something and we've got him in a place where he can't do any further harm.
I submit that there is no sense of the word "justice" that demands his death.
I submit that there are reasons to kill him that relate to retribution (or revenge).
Whether there are other...less base...human needs served by killing him is immaterial to me. If anything, they just provide a balm to spread over the event after the fact so some can try to claim that this was really a good and reasonable use of the death penalty.
But...read the words above carefully, please, this time.
Justice does not DEMAND his death.
A sense of revenge does.
Beyond that...we can speculate on how people might rationalize this, but I want us all to realize before we kill this man, that there is no reason that we MUST kill him.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
[side comment]
Only on Hatrack would a preacher and a lawyer argue about what mathematical function best models retribution.
[/side comment]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:That last sentence was independent of the point about wrongful conviction...or punishment of the wrong person.
My point was that this statement: "Well...it just feels like 'justice was done' right up to the point where we discover the guy was innocent all along" is true whether the punishment was served up for retribution, revenge, deterrence, rehabilitation, incapacitation, or all or some of these. Assuming we want to have a sense when we punish someone that "justice was done," (and I hoppe to God we do), then ANY wrongful conviction which we think correct at the time will result in us feeling like "'justice was done' right up to the point where we discover the guy was innocent all along."
It seems you agree with that.
quote:Whether there are other...less base...human needs served by killing him is immaterial to me. If anything, they just provide a balm to spread over the event after the fact so some can try to claim that this was really a good and reasonable use of the death penalty.
This statement seem to be stating that YOU understand the true motivation behind people's statements to the contrary and are substituting your judgment for theirs. The "good" reasons don't matter, because the retribution reasons exist. It's one thing to say "I think it would be unjust to kill this man" or "I think justice can be served without killing this man."
It's another thing entirely to say that non-revenge-based reasons for killing this man are just a "balm." You go from "justice does not demand his death" to "there are reasons to kill him that relate to revenge." Although you seem to acknowledge that there might be reasons to kill him that relate to justice, you rather casually dismiss those reasons.
quote:A sense of revenge does.
Clearly, a sense of revenge does not demand execution, since there are people who want him kept alive so he'll suffer longer. Revenge can justify killing him or imprisoning him. Justice can justify both as well, especially if we're going to use phrases like "no sense of the word 'justice.'"
The accurate way to sum this up would be:
1.) Justice does not demand his death. 2.) A sense of revenge does not demand his death. 3.) A sense of revenge can be used to justify his death. 4.) Justice can be used to justify his death.
P.S., I miss the Prosecutor thread. If you have the state and a newspaper cite, I would put that in my paper.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: Dude all you have to do is read the paper. 99% of the terrorists that come out of places like afganistan are brainwashed. What makes him different? Even Moussaoui himself brushed off the defenses arguement of insanity.
Please don't tell me you're saying you read the newspaper to determine if someone is sane or not.
Most of the terrorists probably think we're all brainwashed, too. And to a very real degree, I think we are.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I reject your summary...of course.
The point was this, and this only:
If justice does not demand the man's death, then killing him does not SERVE justice's aims.
If that is the case, then whatever else we are talking about, it isn't justice. So, claiming that some motivations for his death relate to justice merely is a back-door way to justify something which doesn't, in the final analysis, truly relate. At least not in any direct correlative fashion.
It is, by definition, something other than justice that requires this man's death -- if people are asserting that his death is required.
That's all I've been saying since day one in this thread.
If we kill him, I just don't want to hear anyone saying "justice was served."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:That's all I've been saying since day one in this thread.
If we kill him, I just don't want to hear anyone saying "justice was served."
No, that's very different than what you said before.
First you said, "I want us all to realize before we kill this man, that there is no reason that we MUST kill him."
Now you're saying his death can't serve justice.
Two very different things that can only be identical with a whole lot of intermediate premises that many people won't accept.
There are people who do believe that killing him will serve justice. Many of them likely don't believe that justice demands his killing. You can close your ears to their reasons if you want. But don't pretend that the people who believe otherwise, who have deeply thought out philosophical beliefs about this with thousands of years of tradition behind them, are simply fooling themselves so that they can get their revenge.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Sorry, you're missing the one point I'm making...again.
If "justice" doesn't demand that he be killed, then how exactly is "justice" the reason for killing him?
I'm not trying to be dismissive, but something is obviously getting over-complicated here. I don't think it's me. I seem to be able to summarize my opinion in one sentence or less. I've done so consistently across days and posts.
I haven't changed it a bit.
It makes just as much sense as it did the first time I posted it.
And you keep saying I'm being dismissive but haven't yet come around to actually stating how exactly this simple statement is logically flawed in any way.
I draw conclusions based on the truth of that statement that may be uncomfortable and some may certainly not wish to agree with.
Fine...but I think redefining "justice" isn't going to get us anywhere. Either the statement is true, or you need to state in clear terms why it isn't true.
If you don't like my conclusions based on the statement, that's another thing entirely.
But please...either justice demands the guy's death or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then killing him is not derivable from an exercise in justice.
Posted by GodSpoken (Member # 9358) on :
LOL! And here we have the answer to the question posed in the post regarding extremist control of our political parties.
btw: Thank you Dan_Raver
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But please...either justice demands the guy's death or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then killing him is not derivable from an exercise in justice.
Please, indeed. "X does not demand Y" does not mean that "X is not served by Y." Unless, perchance, you happen to think that there's only one possible punishment that can serve justice in any situation.
You've got at least one missing premise in there, and if it's only one, it's a doozy.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Sorry...still not seeing it.
What you seem to be saying is the following:
Whatever the outcome decided by the jury...that's justice.
So, - if we kill him, that's justice - if we incarcerate him, that's justice - if we get him psychiatric help, that's justice - if we had let him go, that would've been justice too
Unless what you are saying is that the action of a court and jury "defines" justice, it seems to me that the word justice is irrelevant to the outcome, not the description of it.
If any and all of those outcomes can BE justice in this same case (well, okay, not the last one cuz they found him guilty...) then it's not justice that's defining the outcome.
Also, I think this type of justice needs a qualifier on it. Some adjective to show that it's not real justice, but justice based on a flawed, uncertain...dare I say "human" process.
In which case, I'm even more dead set (pardon the pun) against the death penalty, because I know how bad we are as a society and as a species at making the right decision. Given that, I'm even less happy about "final" decisions arising from this process-derived version of justice.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Sorry...still not seeing it.
What you seem to be saying is the following:
Whatever the outcome decided by the jury...that's justice.
That's not even CLOSE to what I'm saying. Please, again. The acknowledgement that more than one punishment in a particular case could serve justice does not even come CLOSE to saying that any outcome in a particular case could serve justice.
I haven't ventured an opinion as to whether the death penalty would be justice in this case. I have simply taken exception to your enormous leap between "X does not demand Y" and "X is not served by Y."
I'm almost at a loss as to why you can't see the difference between those statements.
Traffic safety can be served by everyone driving 55 MPH on a road. Traffic safety might also be served by everyone driving 65 MPH on a road.
That doesn't mean that traffic safety would be served by everyone driving 180 on that road.
Do I need to give any of the other thousand or so examples I could come up with here?
Saying a given end does not demand a particular end tells us nothing about how many different means will serve that end. It doesn't even say that the particular means in question will not serve that end. It only says that there is at least one means not the same as the particular means that will serve that end.
A given end can be served by more than one means. That does not mean that the given end can be served by ANY means.
So please stop stating that I said any outcome is justice.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
All I'm trying to do is get you to acknowledge that the mere fact that X does not demand Y does not mean that X is not served by Y.
Do you really not see that? THe idea that there is more than one way to accomplish a particular goal is a concept everyone has to use just to get through their life.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Many of them likely don't believe that justice demands his killing. You can close your ears to their reasons if you want. But don't pretend that the people who believe otherwise, who have deeply thought out philosophical beliefs about this with thousands of years of tradition behind them, are simply fooling themselves so that they can get their revenge.
It should be noted that, despite the millennia-long tradition, almost no modern ethicists believe that retribution is just.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It should be noted that, despite the millennia-long tradition, almost no modern ethicists believe that retribution is just.
That's simply not true.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
What prominent contemporary ethicist would agree with you?
Not John Rawls. Not Philip Pettit. Not Peter Singer. Not Bernard Williams. Not TM Scanlon. My impression is that Ronald Dworkin is not a retributivist, though I could be wrong about that.
There are going to be dissenting voices to any orthodoxy, but the orthodoxy in ethics during the last half of the 20th century has been extremely anti-retributivist.
Not that appeal to authority should convince you. I was merely trying to undermine your own appeal to authority in the form of the historical tradition. Hobbes would have agreed with you, but then he also believed that the nerves carry sensation first to the heart and then to the brain by vibrating.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Although morality for Hobbes is sort of a construct, rather than a fundamental truth, so maybe he wouldn't really have agreed with the substance of your view...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What prominent contemporary ethicist would agree with you?
Would agree with me on what?
As for modern-day advocates of retribution, either as the only true justification for punishment or as a necessary part of a just systemt:
Paul H. Robinson Michael S. Moore Stephen J. Morse Ernest van den Haag Joshua Dressler
And that's just (edit: easy identifications) from the first 20 of 844 articles on my lexis search.
quote:I was merely trying to undermine your own appeal to authority in the form of the historical tradition.
I wasn't making an appeal to authority. I was pointing out that there's a lot more to retribuitive theory than merely a balm for desires for revenge.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
These are all law professors. I was talking about ethicists -- scholars who actually investigate the foundations of morality rather than its implementation in the justice system.
Obviously these law people are very smart, but they study a different (and, in my only-slightly-informed opinion, less rigorous) body of literature.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
admits the "possibility" of arguing from a utilitarian standpoint that killing terrorists prevents the deaths of greater numbers of civilians. I am avoiding the entire arguement of the inconcistancy of killing civilians in the effort to kill terrorists and the killing of embryos.
I am merely responding to the assertion that no modern ethicist agrees with capital punishment. I think Singer would agree with certain forms of capital punishment and yes I am saying that military strikes on terrorists is a form of capital punishment.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Sorry for double posting but Singer as far as I can tell has not directly addressed the question of Capital Punishment. Therefore its VERY difficult to say either in the affirmative or the negative what Singer would say about capital punishment.
But from my research of Singer the above article is the only thing he has said that is remotely related to capital punishment and seeing as Singer is a self proclaimed Utilitarian, I think there the hintings of arguements for capital punishment in the article.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I wasn't saying no modern ethicist agrees with capital punishment. I was saying that very few modern ethicists believe that any punishment can be justified for retributive reasons.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:These are all law professors. I was talking about ethicists -- scholars who actually investigate the foundations of morality rather than its implementation in the justice system.
These are the people who spend their time studying and writing about what the moral basis for punishment is.
If you want to persist with your restricted qualifications of authority on the matter, however, I'll simply amend my original remark from "That's simply not true" to "That's simply not relevant."
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I found a more direct quote from Singer about Capital Punishment:
In the name of what we are allowed to punish someone bad and evil, if we agree that the world is evil? Maybe we should let everyone to be evil as the world is evil? I know that it sounds terribly, but what are the arguments against such perspective? Peter Singer: The argument against such a perspective is that then more people [and perhaps other sentient beings, like animals] will suffer than if we punish those who do bad things. I do not view punishment as retribution for evil, but as preventing people committing further crimes, and as deterring others who might be contemplating commiting crimes.
I cannot tell what else besides the "Retributive" element of capital punishment might deter others from commiting capital crimes, but you may take Singers comments as you wish.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:If you want to persist with your restricted qualifications of authority on the matter, however, I'll simply amend my original remark from "That's simply not true" to "That's simply not relevant."
You don't think that studying the foundations of a concept can grant insights that the study of its application typically obscures?
If not, should we conclude (for instance) that physicists and engineers know more about math than mathematicians?
You mentioned in the other thread that Anglo-American law grew out of a retributivist tradition. I agree with that, and I think it's poisoned law scholars' ability to discover certain truths about ethics. They get inculcated with retributivist thought before they're exposed to evidence that tells against it -- if they ever are.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I cannot tell what else besides the "Retributive" element of capital punishment might deter others from commiting capital crimes, but you may take Singers comments as you wish.
"Retributive" has a very specific meaning as we're using the term in this thread. It refers to the idea that punishment is deserved by those who are guilty of moral wrongdoing, and specifically not to the idea that punishment can be justified because it serves a useful function. Retributivists will tell you that punishment itself can be just, setting aside the question of its effects.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You don't think that studying the foundations of a concept can grant insights that the study of its application typically obscures?
Of course I do. However, I think you're highly inaccurate in saying the law professors aren't studying the foundations.
Edit: I also didn't say that ethicists were irrelevant. Again, see what my point was: not that retribution is correct because of authority, but that there are serious arguments that support retribution as a means to justice that aren't merely balms for the vengeful desires.
quote:I think it's poisoned law scholars' ability to discover certain truths about ethics. They get inculcated with retributivist thought before they're exposed to evidence that tells against it -- if they ever are.
The leading anti-retributivists were legal scholars. One of the most influential group of legal thinkers - the ALI - created an entire system of criminal law based only on the three utilitarian justifications. There is a rousing divide and ongoing debate in legal scholarship over utilitarian v. deontological schemes of punishment. Given that many, many, many legal scholars oppose retributivism, it's hard to see how you could make a case that legal scholarship itself somehow prevents discovering these ethical "truths."
If your characterization of those you refer to as "ethicists" is accurate, then your criticism applies more to ethicists than legal scholars. A far more credible charge of field-wide bias against a particular idea can be levied at a field with no disagreement on the issue than one with an ongoing debate in the contemporary scholarship.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Interesting... I wasn't aware that there was much support for non-retributive justification in law scholarship. Mea culpa on that point.
Anyway, I don't think that philosophical ethics is biased against retributivism. It's just very hard to defend a secular, retributivist ethic. It seems like whatever you value, whether it's freedom, happiness or personal virtue, punishment by itself doesn't intrinsically further any of these goods.
And if one believes in the sanctity of certain rights, the situation is even worse: punishment is flately incompatible with respecting the rights of the person to be punished. So then one has to cobble together some story about how rights are suspended when you act immorally, but only to some limited degree depending on the severity of the offense (what does that mean, anyway, when the issue in the first place was inviolable rights?), and it all begins to seem very ad hoc.
Of course, things are different if you believe that moral rightness has its origin in God's commands. But (and maybe this is where the bias you suggested comes in) many philosophical ethicists have set aside this view as sort of uninteresting. Since God has free will and could command anything, this view leaves us no way of determining right or wrong except through revealed scripture. Doesn't leave much for the ethicist to do!
quote:There is a rousing divide and ongoing debate in legal scholarship over utilitarian v. deontological schemes of punishment.
Terminological point: one could easily be a deontologist without being a retributivist. Rawls and the other contractualists would be an example.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:All I'm trying to do is get you to acknowledge that the mere fact that X does not demand Y does not mean that X is not served by Y.
I think your are misrepresenting Bob's point.
If Y is served by W, X and Z, then it is not sufficient to claim that you chose X in order to serve Y.
If justice is served by more than one option, then justice cannot be used to differentiate between the options.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
To be fair to Dag, justice might be served to different degrees by the different options. So it might be more just that he die, rather than be imprisoned, although imprisonment would still be somewhat just.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
There is a lot of cross over between disciplines so the question is not whether the proponents of retributive justice are legal scholars or ethical scholars.
The question is whether they have adequately explored the question of retribution from the standpoint of ethics. If no one in the field of ethics is a proponent of retribution but many in the field of law are, I would tend to suspect that the legal scholars are not addressing the subject from an ethical basis.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If Y is served by W, X and Z, then it is not sufficient to claim that you chose X in order to serve Y.
That's not strictly true. First, as Destineer pointed out, there could be differing degrees of justice provided by the different options. Second, and more importantly, it is still true to say that the reason one is taking action X is to serve Y, even if option W and Z would also serve Y. It might not be sufficient to explain why W and Z weren't selected, but it doesn't mean that Y wasn't served.
quote:If justice is served by more than one option, then justice cannot be used to differentiate between the options.
If I thought that's what he was saying I wouldn't have a problem with it. I have no problem with Bob defending his belief that "Justice does not demand his death."
It's when he goes from there to "If justice does not demand the man's death, then killing him does not SERVE justice's aims" as if the former proved the latter that I take exception. Especially when language such as the "balm" statement strongly implies that Bob considers the language of justice to be a mere smokescreen for vengeful thoughts.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The question is whether they have adequately explored the question of retribution from the standpoint of ethics. If no one in the field of ethics is a proponent of retribution but many in the field of law are, I would tend to suspect that the legal scholars are not addressing the subject from an ethical basis.
I'm still not convinced that there are no proponents of retribution in the field of ethics. I don't happen to have an easy way to search ethicists literature right now, but there are plenty of cites to ethics scholarship in the law articles on the subject. (Edit: that are used by those who believe in retribution.)
Second, it only takes a few minute's reading to see that the legal articles do treat the subject from an ethical basis.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:It's when he goes from there to "If justice does not demand the man's death, then killing him does not SERVE justice's aims" as if the former proved the latter that I take exception. Especially when language such as the "balm" statement strongly implies that Bob considers the language of justice to be a mere smokescreen for vengeful thoughts.
Well...how about if I moderate that to say simply that invoking "justice" provides a way for people to mask other emotions that may be at play in these situations. I personally would feel better if people could provide some other motivation because I believe (personally, again) that justice provides insufficient motivation (since justice could be "satisfied" through actions short of the death of the person. If that is the case, then I don't see how the concept of justice can be viewed as necessary or sufficient justification for the death penalty. I could be convinced that people's innate sense of justice plays a role, and still demand that there be something in addition to "justice" to justify taking a life.
I'm not sure what that something else could be, though...so maybe this isn't such a neat resolution to my issue after all.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Hey, I never said there are no retributivist ethicists! That's definitely not true. But the view is out of style, and has been for some time.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Like hip hugger bell bottoms?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Well...how about if I moderate that to say simply that invoking "justice" provides a way for people to mask other emotions that may be at play in these situations.
Absolutely. I will say that both deterrence and incapacitation rationales can* be used to maks other emotions in the same way and to justify punishments every bit as harsh.
In fact, the modern retributivist movement stems in large part from trying to tame the excesses of "prevention" justifications.
* Emphasize "can" not "must" - see Rabbit's posts in the insanity thread for these rationales not being used as a mask.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Killing is wrong.
Always.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by andi330: Killing is wrong.
Always.
As a word of wisdom, from somebody with little to give, try not to have such absolutist views. They are usually impossible to defend.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I think that one can be defended, actually -- for example, if killing is sometimes the least wrong of a set of alternatives, it may still be the preferred course of action (e.g. self-defence). That doesn't necessarily mean that it's right, merely that it's the least of a set of evils in such a circumstance.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
quote:Killing is wrong.
Always.
Why do you believe this?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by andi330: Killing is wrong.
Always.
*scratches head, killing thousands of skin cells*
Think of the poor carrots.
*wipes tear*
BTW, andi330, what did you have for dinner last night?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:There is a lot of cross over between disciplines so the question is not whether the proponents of retributive justice are legal scholars or ethical scholars.
The question is whether they have adequately explored the question of retribution from the standpoint of ethics. If no one in the field of ethics is a proponent of retribution but many in the field of law are, I would tend to suspect that the legal scholars are not addressing the subject from an ethical basis.
Dr. Rabbit,
I think that there may be a disconnect from ethicists and legal scholars, at least as evidenced from my experience from this thread. I've read everyone of the scholars Destineer mentioned and not a wit of the retributivists Dagonee lists.
If those legal scholars are, as Dagonee suggests, exploring the moral foundations of punishment in addition to the foundations of morality, and not merely practical strategies and ways to implement laws, then ethics has quite a bit to learn from legal scholars.
I don't know enough about Robinson, Moore, Morse, or Van Der Haag to make an informed comment on the quality of their scholarship.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by andi330: Killing is wrong.
Always.
*scratches head, killing thousands of skin cells*
Think of the poor carrots.
*wipes tear*
BTW, andi330, what did you have for dinner last night?
Perhaps andi330 is a Jain and only eats the parts of plants which do not require the killing of the plant.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: [QUOTE]There is a lot of cross over between disciplines so I think that there may be a disconnect from ethicists and legal scholars, at least as evidenced from my experience from this thread. I've read everyone of the scholars Destineer mentioned and not a wit of the retributivists Dagonee lists.
Not necessarily, based on what I know of cross-disciplinary scholarship, what these legal scholars are writing could easily be a reinvention of a wheel that ethicists explored and discarded long ago.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I was talking about ethicists -- scholars who actually investigate the foundations of morality rather than its implementation in the justice system.
Obviously these law people are very smart, but they study a different (and, in my only-slightly-informed opinion, less rigorous) body of literature.
You are switching from one definition of "ethicist" to another here. First you say ethicists are "scholars who actually investigate the foundations of morality" but then you go on to imply that ethicists are scholars who study one particular body of literature. Unless you believe the only way to investigate the foundations of morality is to study that one particular body of literature, these definitions are inconsistent. I'd argue that it's easily possible to investigate the foundations of morality without ever reading any literature, whatsoever.
The issue of retribution here IS a question of the foundations of morality. Therefore, if these legal scholars are putting forth research and arguments towards their conclusion in support of retribution, they are investigating the foundations of morality. And hence, they are ethicists by your original definition.
Of course, investigating something doesn't mean your conclusions from that investigation are correct. Being an ethicist doesn't mean you are an expert on what is right or wrong. So, as you already pointed out, this appeal to authority should be largely irrelevant.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote:Perhaps andi330 is a Jain and only eats the parts of plants which do not require the killing of the plant.
Those poor plants hobbling around on crutches. *cry*
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)