quote:the $26,000 per year it costs to keep a murderer in prison
The number I heard from my colleague who used to work in corrections was actually closer to $50,000 per year.
-o-
I don't think the purpose of capital punishment is to "prove killing is wrong," and so I do not see any inconsistency here. I also do not think that it is necessary to oppose capital punishment if you oppose abortion. I don't really see these as related issues.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Frisco, your point is irrelevent (concerning deterrence). In non-death penalty states the murder rate is not statistically any higher, so those people who were deterred by the death penalty seemingly are also deterred by life w/ or w/o parole.
quote: I also do not think that it is necessary to oppose capital punishment if you oppose abortion.
I read a short snippet of a book by Rush Limbaugh where he said a pragmatist would believe in both, a Christian in neither. I didn't get far enough to find out what he considered himself to be.
The Pope's "Gospel of Life" decries both.
I think there is too great tendency to convict someone, anyone. This practice falls especially hard on minorities. But this is more of a practical concern, a little higher than cost effectiveness, but a little lower than "does the state have the right to deprive someone of life".
My strongest sentiment against is you can only kill someone once. I haven't read the short story about the guy who actually had to be killed a thousand times. I guess I should give that a shot. But capital offenses typically have to go beyond merely murdering someone. The definitions I am aware of are: murder-rape, child murder, and multiple murder. So by very definition, capital crimes cannot be discharged solely by the humane death of the accused.
I think the "no cruel or unusual" clause limits us, but it should because our judgement cannot be perfect.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't seriously accept that restitution or punishment constitutes some sort of "double negative." Imagine applying the same sort of logic to other crimes:
"I'm sorry, Mr. Jones. I know the bad guys took your valuable painting, but we can't just go in there and get it to return it to you. That would be stealing, and stealing is wrong."
"Yes, he has been kidnapping people and forcing them into slavery for years now, but we can't just go in there and grab him and put him in prison. We can't take away his right to liberty like that. It would make us no better than he is."
Say what?
Besides, the goal of any punishment for any crime isn't to make things right again. If we could make things right again, we could just do it, and there would be almost no need for punishment. The death penalty won't make everything all better, and nobody's saying it needs to.
We're just saying some people have sacrificed thier right to life through their own actions.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
There are four levels to The Death Penalty. I believe that arguing one against the other will not solve the dilema. We must argue them, pro or con, individually. Then we will see where we stand.
1) Sanctity of life. If you believe life is Sacred, then taking life, under any conditions, is sinful. The debate here is whether that sacredness exists even after the crimminal took another, or many other lives. At what point do you surrender the sacredness of your life? After killing one person? After cold bloodilly killing one? After 3? What of soldiers? Policemen? Executioners?
2) Justice/Vengeance: There is something deeply fitting about the phrase, "An eye for an eye." There is a deep urge in people to want to see justice done. So when a man murders someone, our basic nature is a call for that person to die. Although few people will phrase their arguments for Capital Punishment on the need for Justice/Vengeance, they will turn around and argue "You can't mean they should go unpunished."
Is prison punishment? Is being labeled a prisoner punishment enough? What of children who commit these crimes? What of the insane who do not recognize this crime? Should all of them face this same punishment?
(PS I disagree about forced labor making the crimminal regret his murder for the rest of his life. Most people so self-centered to be murderers will find other people to blaim for their suffering, even "those pesky kids".)
3) Innocent Suffering. The practical argument against the death penalty is that occasionally the innocent shall suffer. Death is permanent (leaving religious arguments out of this since every versiom of religion has divine judgement to handle punishment after death). Any mistake made cannot be rectified later.
We have recently seen where over-anxious prosecutors, seeking the fame and political power of being "tough on crime" and police departments seeking much the same have gone over the line in optaining prosecutions. This combined with overloading of the public defender system has resulted in a large number of guilty verdicts of innocent people. It is unknown how many innocent people the state has killed.
If you argue that killing 2 innocent men is a fair price to stop 5 murderers from killing again you better hope you or a loved one never becomes one the innocents killed. Even if those murderers are locked away in prison, they may kill other prisoners.
My problem with that argument goes back to the justice one. If my wife is killed by a man, I can demand justice from my government. If my wife is wrongly killed by the government, where can I go for justice?
Many people argue the are Pro-Capital Punishment as long as the murderers die. The devil is in that detail. How do we insure that only the guilty pay the ultimate price?
4)Practical considerations. These are monetary and deterence. We spend good money to kill these people, and we spend good money to incarcerate them. It seems the killing of them would be cheaper, but the system is so legally complicated that it may be more expensive to have them killed. Perhaps fixing the system to expidate killing the murderers while ensuring that the innocent are protected would work. Then the only question would be, how much of a fiscal savings is one life worth?
Deterents seems to be a minor issue. Sure, if the choice we would-be murderers must make is Kill and go free, there would be more murders. However, when we think, "Kill him and if I get caught I may be executed." and "Kill him and if I get caught I may go to jail for the rest of my life." there doesn't seem to be a big difference in the level of deterence between the two.
Where does this all leave me?
1) Life is sacred. Killing people who have murdered is wrong. Killing people who may murder again is right. Even if their victims will be other prisoner, they need to be stopped. The only way to stop it is to kill the killer. (we do not have the expertise to really change some people.)--Pro Death Penalty.
2)Justice and Vengeance is a strong factor, but not neccesarilly the strongest. Life in Prison is good for most murderers. I don't want to be someone who demands a death to appease my sense of justice. -- Anti Death Penalty.
3) I do not want to see innocents die. Perhaps if they did a better job of determining guilt or innocents. For now, I must stick with being cautious. --Anti Death Penalty
4) Practical, draw. The money is about the same either way in my book, and doesn't count for much in my book. Deterance is not a factor. --Draw.
Total--2.5 to 1.5 against the Death Penalty
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your analogies are flawed, because the punishment of robbers or kidnappers isn't taking back that which they illegally procured, but in the subsequent sentences of a court of law. The recovery is just the return to the status quo.
Murder is fundamentally different in this regard, you cannot restore the status quo. No matter what you do, society is altered fundamentally. I see no reason to add a further death to events. Very rarely is no one affected by a death, even if the person is a heinous murderer (they tend to have families too). Therefore, we should do the least necessary, from an application of force standpoint, as a society to protect ourselves from the murderer. I see life without parole an acceptable solution.
Of course, I see prisons largely as holding blocks to keep societally disruptive people away from society, so that society can continue to function in a reasonably civilized manner. Incidentally, while we've got them for XX years, we might as well do our best to keep them from relapsing after they have served their term. However, once again, I see murder as a special case, and see no reason why life w/o parole isn't a worthy alternative, with the added bonuses of putting some of these people to work for some small societal gain (purposefully putting them on especially hard labor seems to me to be overly vengeful, but I have less of an immediate issue if you see this as a valuable option for all criminals regardless of their crime), or if they are incapable of that the ability to study them so warning signs of such behavior can be seen in others and treated appropriately, or, perhaps best of all, it allows them to regain some amount of liberty if they are exonerated.
quote:We're just saying some people have sacrificed thier right to life through their own actions.
What would make you believe that, though?
The right to life is unalienable - it can't be given away or taken or sacrificed.
Furthermore, even if you did believe some people sacrificed their right to live, why do you think that means we should kill them, given you admit it doesn't solve things? I have no right to a job, for instance, but that doesn't mean my employer should fire me.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Despite the opening of the Declaration, clearly the right to life is not inalienable, or we would prosecute those who kill in self-defense, including police officers. We also would not give guns to our soldiers. (And we would have taken them away from Washington's continental soldiers.)
Remember that rights, even inalienable ones, end when they infringe on those of others. I believe people can lose their right to life if their actions have shown that allowing them to live endangers the lives of others.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So why not just have lifetime incarceration, Icarus, rather than death penalty?
-Bok
EDIT:
Dan:
quote:Killing people who may murder again is right.
How do you make this determination, and if we can make this determination, why can't we just lock these people up and throw away the key, rather than execute them? Why give up a little of our compassion (I guess this is semantic, since I believe it is always more compassionate to not kill a person if there are no large barriers to doing so), even if it is right, or at least, acceptable?
posted
I could be okay with that. But too often, people are released early, and sometimes they escape. I am also uncomfortable with the fact that humane treatment of criminals means giving them certain perks that many law-abiding folks in our society don't have.
I know that sometimes the "lavish" treatment of prisoners is overstated. I know that violent criminals don't end up in the minimum security "Club Fed" type places. (I actually knew somebody who spend a year in a minimum security prison. He left in the best shape of his life, after playing tennis and exercising on a daily basis, and bragged about all the comforts of prison.) I'm sure that life in a maximum-security prison can be hell in many ways. I certainly wouldn't want to be there. But there are still some fairness issues, in my mind, with the resources we expend on prisoners. Like the fact that post-secondary education is free to those prisoners who want it, while it is not for noncriminals. If we feel as a society that higher education is a right, or a good investment, then we should provide it to everybody.
Fix these issues, and I would settle for lifetime incarceration--though I would still have no moral issue with capital punishment.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, I think it's silly to say, "In some/many cases criminals have it too good, so I support killing them until we also restrict their opportunities." Now, I'm not against perhaps some scaling back of perks, but to predicate the abolishment of the DP on this, even partly, seems cruel to me. Take the DP out of play, and then say, "We've decided to remove this option, as a result, we think that certain privileges ought to be revoked".
As for the paroled murderers, these are the murderers that would not have gotten the death penalty in any case (which is an interesting side issue, since we don't even treat all murders as equal in the current system), so that issue is moot, I think.
The escapee issue IS a problematic issue. I can understand your reluctance on this point, and frankly, I don't have a good answer.
posted
But you're starting from a different place than I am. You're beginning with the thought that the death penalty is cruel and unusual. It doesn't seem cruel to me to predicate its abolishment on tightening up the penal system, because I consider it a perfectly appropriate punishment. I consider lifetime incarceration a liveable compromise, but only if the flaws in the system are fixed.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my opinion, death is a mercy compared to prison rape, which happens quite often. Just something to consider when thinking about cruel and unusual punishment, as well as justice and vengeance.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it is necessarily cruel or unusual. I think it is functionally superfluous, short of the escapee issue. Even if it weren't cruel/unusual, we have other ways to do basically the same thing that at the same time reduces total deaths, and the accompanying effects on citizens.
posted
Danzig, while you may think so, should you get to make an irrevocable decision about someone else's life based on your ideas of the response of death row inmates to maximum security prisons?
Prison conditions may be harsh (even criminally so), but we can (ought to?) do something to minimize those issues. We can't give a life back to someone (or that someone to their family), if they are innocent. All other punishments can be stopped, or slacked, or moderated; death cannot.
posted
Oh, yeah. We can give two years of life back to someone falsely imprisoned. And if we free somebody from slavery, everything is right in the world, again. There's no lasting damage.
("Oh, and in case you couldn't tell, I was being sarcastic.")
The entire judicial system is based on taking away freedoms or doing other things that would otherwise be morally wrong.
The whole point of the judiciary is to provide "due process" for losing those rights. You can only lose your right to privacy through "due process" to get a warrant. You can only lose your right to freedom through "due process."
Same with your right to life.
That, to me, is why 1. and 3., in Dan's example, are two seperate issues. Nobody would say, "I am against imprisoning people because the judicial system is bad." They would say, "Imprisoning people is fine, but we need to fix the system that puts them there. We need to take care not to imprison the innocent."
Doesn't this make sense to anybody? Whether you are for or against the death penalty is a completely seperate issue from whether the existing system is the best way to impliment it.
If you think murderers deserve to die, then they deserve to die. There is no need to keep them alive and put them in prison, so they can "think about thier crime."
quote:What would make you believe that, though?
The right to life is unalienable - it can't be given away or taken or sacrificed.
Furthermore, even if you did believe some people sacrificed their right to live, why do you think that means we should kill them, given you admit it doesn't solve things? I have no right to a job, for instance, but that doesn't mean my employer should fire me.
This is where the arguemnt is, to me. If the right to life is unalienable, or as I think you mean, unforfitable, then the death penalty is wrong. If the right to life is forfitable, then the death penalty is right.
That's the entire arguement. Arguements about implimenting the system or about the detterent power of the death penalty are all tangential.
The only real arguement that's left is at what point those rights are forfit.
As for the job analogy--it is not only the government's right to take rights away from those who are no longer worthy of them, it is the government's responsibility.
The way a free society works is like this (or, at least it was before 9-11):
You and I are given freedom to do what we want and come and go as we please. We're not watched, we're not tracked, we're not manipulated.
Once one of us does something to prove we're not worthy of that right, that right is taken away. The government MUST take it away, for the good of everybody else.
Sometimes they are taken away for a time. Sometimes they are taken away forever.
The free society can only remain a peaceful society if those people who abuse those freedoms have them taken away. It is not only the government's right to take those freedoms away from those people--it is the government's responisblity.
Imagine it in a job situation--you are in a Union that provides, in the contract with the company, that you have the right to keep that job. However, you have placed ground glass in the food supply in the employee kitchen. You have lost your right to work. But doesn't your company also owe it to the other employees to insure you are terminated, for all of their sakes? Isn't your workplace a better place for not having you in it, rather then relegating you to some menial job with poor pay and hard work?
So yes, I am arguing that the world would be a better place without murderers and rapists it, even if those people are only in prisons, where we cage them and wait for them to die of natural causes so that we can feel humane and compassionate to even the most vile dregs of society.
They broke the rules. And they broke the rules so bad that we're not just going to put them in time out. We're not going to let them play.
A life sentence, if lived out, is the death penalty. We all just sit around waiting to see how it's going to happen, rather than deciding for ourselves.
It's the same either way. They're put in a cage where all they have to look forward to is death.
Is it really all that compassionate to make them wait it out?
Or can we, even without hate, take the life of that man who we may understand, we may forgive, but who we know has made his own fate, when he chose what he chose, and maybe even do that out of compassion?
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that if the right to life in not inalienable, it simply means the death penalty is acceptable, not necessarily that it is right, or best, or most effective.
quote:Frisco, your point is irrelevent (concerning deterrence). In non-death penalty states the murder rate is not statistically any higher, so those people who were deterred by the death penalty seemingly are also deterred by life w/ or w/o parole.
The largest urban area in states without the death penalty is Detroit(#7 metro area in the U.S. in population), and Michigan has the highest murder rate of the states with no capital punishment.
So, there are potentially other reasons for the murder rate in non-death penalty states to be lower. It's a much smaller sample, too. Only 37 million people reside in states without capital punishment, compared to 247 million in the other states.
That said, I was only pointing out a flaw in logic. I could care less if the death penalty were a deterrence. I like it as a method for removing unsavory individuals from the gene pool.
We have to find some way to work with the laws of natural selection. We can't defy them at every turn.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Humans are creatures with such amazingly selective vision...
We kill people all the time, and sometimes for the most flimsy of reasons. We bomb people because we don't like their leaders. Police shoot people for wielding their wallet threateningly. Heck, we even sent american's to help the columbian government kill people working in the coca fields, most of whom were just peasants looking to make a buck.
And we mostly turn a blind eye.
But then we find someone truly despicable. A guy who rapes and murders two little girls (he is on trial here in Portland right now). And suddenly we are overwhelmingly concerned with his rights, and the morality of ending his disgusting existence.
*shrug*
Humans are small. They like the small fights. You want to make the world a better place? End war. That kills millions of innocent people every year. Then come talk about saving the really horrible people. Starting with the worst seems like working backwards to me.
But, I'm human and small just like the rest. And it's easy for me to believe that certain actions cause you to give up your right to life. In fact, my threshold is probably lower than a lot of peoples. Break into my house and threaten my family and as far as I'm concerned you've forfeited your existence. So the guy who raped two little girls and buried them in his back yard is a no brainer.
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Firstly, there are no laws of natural selection that are applicable to us; besides, they only apply to reproductive opportunity, anytime we prevent someone from reproducing that's as good as having killed them as far as those "laws" are concerned.
Slash -- I happen to oppose killing in most of those situations you mention. And my opposition to the death penalty furthermore isn't absolute, but rests on an opposition to killing innocent people, which has been done repeatedly in the US.
Also, the suggestion that we should do nothing unless we eliminate other examples of killing isn't particularly persuasive. If something is undesirable, its undesirable, and we might as well start by trying to eliminate undesirable things we can have an effect on. War is not something we can stop; the death penalty as currently implemented (currently implemented in a way that routinely kills innocent people) is.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Firstly, there are no laws of natural selection that are applicable to us; besides, they only apply to reproductive opportunity, anytime we prevent someone from reproducing that's as good as having killed them as far as those "laws" are concerned.
Eh? Are you saying that humans aren't subject to it, or that we've become so socialist that there's no way we could be, now?
And if it were only a case of genes, I'd certainly be in favor of...er...dismemberment. But as it's a safety issue, also, it's better that we get rid of murderers altogether.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Simply put, there are no laws of natural selection we must enforce. Natural selection only applies to a population, and there is nothing negative about a population failing to survive, it is just something that happens. Evolutionary considerations are amoral. They do not require enforcement to happen, because there is no way they cannot happen. They are merely a way of expressing what does happen.
As such, any appeal to enforcing the laws of natural selection is meaningless.
You can make all the arguments you want about benefit to society and such, and I might even agree with some. But appeals to the laws of natural selection still don't mean a thing.
I repeat, there is no such thing as being "not subject" to the laws of natural selection; that is simply not possible. They are simply a way of describing what does happen.
And as far as evolution is concerned, yes, it is pretty much only a matter of genes. Natural selection describes (not enforces) how favorable (genes which result in better survival of the population) genes are selected for, and unfavorable genes selected against. Nothing to do with individuals except insofar as they are carriers of genes.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aah, a semantic technicality. When I want a textbook answer, I'll go to a textbook. When I want actual thoughts, I'll come to Hatrack.
You apparently knew what I meant, but I suppose I'll rephrase it to this: We're no longer allowing those without the skills to keep from starving to death to do so. We're actively countering evolution on an individual level in order to increase our population.
We're well beyond ensuring the survival of our species through population. Quality, not quantity, is what is going to bring us a higher certainty of survival, now--i.e. getting off this rock.
While the term can be used to describe the final product, humans, I believe, are conscious enough of the concept of natural selection to anticipate our path and change it.
Maybe I'll start referring to my theory as "unnatural selection". Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Evolution doesn't occur on an individual level.
You shouldn't speak of your theory as natural selection, you're right. Because it isn't. Natural selection has no moral weight.
I apologize if I'm being hard line on this, but a lot of people oppose evolutionary theory precisely because of rather misguided ideas about natural selection.
Also, you'd be surprised to learn that those species which survive via natural selection often survive via unexpected means. Its sort of like trying to do what results in the fewest deaths -- you really can't tell in advance.
For instance, its quite possible some individual could be a murderer AND a scientist with research that might result in curing a major disease -- this is particularly appropriate to the style of mass murderer that is currently "in vogue". Ultimately, the number of people killed would be less than the number saved by far. However, I support killing the mass murderer. Is this the best choice for the survival of our species? Probably not. Is this example contrived? yes. but it serves its purpose, to illustrate in a hyperbolic manner how choices are not always so obvious, particularly in such an entwined society as ours.
But lets continue the analogy; lets make the scientist innocent yet incorrectly exectued. Now he's dead. However, had there been no death penalty he likely would have gotten out eventually, reasonable doubt established. And perhaps continued his important research. Makes you think, I hope.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Evolution doesn't occur on an individual level.
When we allow millions of individuals, who shouldn't even be in the gene pool, to flood it, we're countering it on that level.
Or did you think I meant that a single person could grow a tail on his 50th birthday?
Any while your analogy is a bit of a stretch (is there really a wave of accomplished scientists going around killing people?), I'd still favor the death penalty. As it's been said before, ensuring that a Death Row inmate is guilty needs to be done on the trial level.
And if he's guilty, well...if he's not smart enough to not get caught, it shouldn't be too hard to find a worthy replacement.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Note that I said I would also favor the death penalty in such a case (and mass murders by medical practitioners is on a bit of a rise lately, yes).
Also, why shouldn't those individuals be in the gene pool? In many species individuals who kill other members of their species are quite successful. You're trying to fit moral arguments to evolution; that just isn't correct.
There is no "countering" to be done. There is nothing to counter. No evaluation is done by evolutionary forces. There is only what happens, and never what should happen.
As for your smart enough to not get caught comment, many medical mass murderers are caught only through the one piece of evidence they can't avoid: statistics.
quote:In many species individuals who kill other members of their species are quite successful.
The further you go down the scale of intelligence, the more prevalent such species become. I'm not of the opinion that humans are one of those species, though.
quote:You're trying to fit moral arguments to evolution; that just isn't correct.
I think you're trying to make my arguments moral. I merely think that any society can only handle a certain amount of aberrance. Rebellion needs to be quelled at some level, even if it seems moral.
quote:(and mass murders by medical practitioners is on a bit of a rise lately, yes).
Oh, I thought you said scientists. Or are these surgeons also performing research in between 16-hour shifts? Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No Frisco, you're the one using words like "need". There is no such thing in natural selection. There is no volition, no imperative, no guideline, no suggestion, no definitionally preferred course. It is just what happens; there is no necessity.
This statement by you is filled with such "moral" (used in the most abstract sense) implications:
quote:I merely think that any society can only handle a certain amount of aberrance. Rebellion needs to be quelled at some level, even if it seems moral.
Society is a moral construct. Aberration (in the sense you use it) is a moral construct. "Handling it" is a moral construct. Rebellion is moral construct. Need is a moral construct. None of these have anything to do with natural selection, which is completely distinct from morality. It could be the moral thing to let the species die out; this would be just as "evolutionarily valid" as maximizing our population, because there is no such thing as being evolutionarily valid, more in line with evolution/natural selection, evolutionarily better, or whatever other term you want to assign to it.
quote:None of these have anything to do with natural selection, which is completely distinct from morality.
With or without the broad definition of "moral", I think this is the pretense on which I disagree. I agree they're distinct, but not independent of each other.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am compelled to to offer a thought or two to the interesting turn this conversation has taken concerneing the definition of "evolution" and natural selection. Coming from a biology background this is a very interesting topic to me.
My question is to Fugu...How can you say that evolution has no moral implications considering that we, as a sentient species, have the ability to comprehend and manipulate the process. I contend that as soon as we gained this ability, there were automatic moral guidelines and responcibilities assigned with that knowledge. I mean the human species interferes with natural selection all the time. How can you say that it is not a morality issue when activist groups protest to save a species purely on moral principles?
I get that you are saying that our actions are just part of evolution and natural selection. But if we are aware of it, and can manipulate our actions accordingly, then it is not natural anymore. It's human selcetion.
And back to the deah penalty arguement. It is an interesting thought to start controlling our own species' evolution by killing the worst segement. Anyone else seen Gatacca? And though I am in favor of the ultimate punishment for a certain segment of out species, I think this is not the best arguement. It might sound crazy but I would rather limit their right to life than their right ot reproduce.
Posts: 181 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think fugu's using "evolution" and "natural selection" as terms describing the history of a finished process, whereas I'm using them to describe the actual process, which I believe can be affected, at least by humans, by Morals.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It can certainly be affected. Anything could be affected by morals. Doesn't mean they aren't distinct.
And evolution/natural selection is never a finished process.
Lets see if I can clarify. Natural selection/evolutionary theory never dictate, mandate, require, or suggest anything. They are merely descriptive tools for stuff that happens. Yes, humans can attempt to make moral judgements based on them, but these moral judgements are not derived from any morality inherent in natural selection; they are not advised or informed by natural selection/evolutionary theory, but merely predicated upon results thereof.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
To offer an example as to why affected things can still be distinct: a moral choice can certainly affect whether I have cereal for breakfast or have nothing. Heck, I can conjecture moral choices that would affect which cereal I have for breakfast (say, avoiding a certain chain of supermarket because they torture children), yet which cereal I have for breakfast (excluding abnormal externalities) is still distinct from morality.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Natural selection/evolutionary theory never dictate, mandate, require, or suggest anything. They are merely descriptive tools for stuff that happens."
Neither is a hammer moral or immoral. But it can be a tool used in an immoral fashion? Is that what you are saying?
Though this is true, there is a problem when applying that to the terms of evolution and natural selection. The fact that they can be used/manipulated/perverted changes thir nature. Using a hammmer to bash someone doesn' change the hammer. But manipulating selction and thereby evolution changes them, makes them un-natural. And the use of anything carries moral implications.
Posts: 181 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Sorry, had to laugh. Evolution/natural selection is never un-natural. Humans are not external to nature, they are a part of it. One can never do anything "against" natural selection because one is an agent of natural selection (or perhaps more precisely, an agent in a system which has natural selection).
I cannot violate natural selection any more than a tree, a cow, or a shark can. Nobody can. The idea that one can is false.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Sorry, had to laugh. Evolution/natural selection is never un-natural. Humans are not external to nature, they are a part of it. One can never do anything "against" natural selection because one is an agent of natural selection (or perhaps more precisely, an agent in a system which has natural selection).
I cannot violate natural selection any more than a tree, a cow, or a shark can. Nobody can. The idea that one can is false.
OK...but then if the above is taken as the true definition of "natural selection", and we as a species make decisions that effect the evolution of a species based upon a moral argument, then at that point the resulting evolution has some component of morality.
I think our failure to commincate is an issue of semantics. Define natural. I define it as unaltered, without human guidence or manipulation or interference. Therefore when we dictate the course of evolution for a species and create a new species (recombinent DNA and bacteria for example), that is not "natural selection". It is controlled selection (un-natural selection) and we are the agent of control.
The concept of natural selection assumes no other agenda other than survival of the species. Or survvival of the fittest if you prefer. Selection with any other agenda is not natural.
Posts: 181 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know I'm distracting away from your evolution/natural selection argument, but I wanted to make a comment to something said further back...
quote: So why not just have lifetime incarceration, Icarus, rather than death penalty?
That is the problem -- life in prison just isn't life in prison.
Every three years, I (and my family) have to "make a date" with the parole board, and tell them all over again why my father's killer should NOT be released on parole.
If you don't think that is hell to go through, then you haven't been through it. It is totally re-victimizing the family.
I could be satisfied that there is no death penalty if those convicted actually DID spend the rest of their natural lives in jail.
posted
Natural selection assumes no agenda at all.
Also, your definition of unnatural in the context of natural selection is quite simply wrong. Natural selection is just a way of describing what is happening in terms of relative survival advantage and disadvantage. When one species of shark evolves a taste bud which makes a particular species of fish tasty, that species of fish is at a relative selective disadvantage to where it was previously. Similarly, when humans decide to fill in wetlands the denizens of those wetlands are at a relative selective disadvantage to where they were previously. We are just as much animals as the shark is, just as much natural. The sharks' actions were no more natural or unnatural than ours were.
The sharks' actions was just as much an action of control as ours was (albeit ours was on a bigger scale -- we're a very well adapted and powerful species). We cannot do anything unnatural for the simple reason we are a part of nature (particularly as far as natural selection is concerned, where nature actually refers to anything that's part of reality, pretty much).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
To use your illistration: Does the shark understand the ramifications of it selection of that species of fish as a delicacy? No. Is it concerned with the preservation of that fish species? No. No moral interference what-so-ever. Natural selection by definition. That fish species will experience increased predation exceterra...
But people, being a sentient organism have the ability to comprehend the consequences of the actions, their exclusive predation in this example. Introduce reasoning and morals. Hence we effect the process of evolution based upon morals. This can make evolution, when contolled by humans, a moral issue.
"Natural selection assumes no agenda at all."
Ok, but if that is true, and we intruduce an agenda ( by manipulation of DNA, breeding paterns, etc...) Then is is NOT natural selection. It is not selection as it would have been if we, as humans with all our morals, hadn't interfered and introduced an agenda.
Sorry Farmgirl for taking over this thread, and thanks for bringing us back around to the subject. Great point.
Posts: 181 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
The thing is, I agree that I'd love to try and stop wars (I think wars out of self defense are actually acceptable, and this can mean pre-emptive, if a clear and present danger is known), cops with itchy trigger fingers, what have you. So your attempt to set up some sort of dichotomy is false, particularly since no one has claimed to be less interested in the former than the death penalty.
Hell, thanks to a bulletin posted at my church's bulletin board at Christmas, I am boycotting Taco Bell, since they are getting tomatos from distributors that crack down on farmer rights to organize for a better wage. These farmers are being paid less today (probably equivalently) than they were 20 years ago, and any attempts by them to organize to ask for a better wage are cracked down on, one way or another.
I am trying to do some stuff to make this world a better place, where I think I can make the most impact, as I see it. I'm sorry that you disagree with every detail, but just because you disagree doesn't make it so. I fail, often, but the alternative is to not care at all, it seems to me.
Of course, your argument SEEMS effective since all we are talking about in this thread is the death penalty. But, uhhhh, this is a thread whose topic is solely the death penalty (see thread title). So just because we are putting 2 pages of effort into this doesn't mean we care less about other situations you could dream up, it just means there aren't threads on those subjects that we have read lately on them, or even more likely, we agree with you on those points.
We're all human, and small. But that doesn't mean we have to BE small all the time. You're a pessimist, I'm an optimist, at least on this issue.
Now, as to your argument itself, sure, with your particular outlook on humanity, it makes sense. But don't go casting aspersions (sp) on others who may not have that outlook (as you imply strongly at the start of your post).
--- Farmgirl, while it is hell for you (and I am sorry about that, that plain sucks), if the person is in fact, reformed (which is not uncommon in murderers, they have one of the lowest recidivism rates for violent crimes, I believe), they SHOULD be set free. It allows us to keep in jail current dangers to society, and allows that person to be beneficial to society.
I agree that in the case of capital punishment cases, the alternative shouldn't be life w/ parole, but life w/o parole. The problem in your case is either that the state in question did not have the death penalty (to which I reccommend that you push for life w/o parole), or the person was not up for capital punishment anyway. If you are implying that all murderers should get a minimum of life w/o parole, and preferably the death penalty, I think that is a harsher stance than anyone has discussed here, and you should elaborate on it, I think it would be interesting, and I could definitely be sympathetic to mandatory life w/o parole (if not death penalty for all murderers).
-- The whole natural selection argument is semantic, but only because everyone but fugu is using a colloquial definition of it. fugu's point about the "absence of intent" in natural selection is NOT semantic, and is a crucial point in understanding natural selection, I think.
If you mean natural as "not man-modified", while this works when talking about, say, medicines, or structures (natural rock formation versus sculpture, for instance), it is a huge difference in the idea of natural selection. By using the more colloquial definition, you are defining an arbitrary, anthropomorphically convenient line that doesn't really exist.
The natural human, that is, all that is human that is not metaphysical (like souls, or spirits) is inherently contained within a system of natural selection. Everything that maifests itself in the physical is natural, at the level at which natural selection describes. Whether it was a moral choice, a choice out of emotion, or just dumb luck, natural selection doesn't care. The subjects under which natural selection may manifest an emotion equivalent to caring about how the action occurred, but that's not within the scope of natural selection.
quote: Farmgirl, while it is hell for you (and I am sorry about that, that plain sucks), if the person is in fact, reformed (which is not uncommon in murderers, they have one of the lowest recidivism rates for violent crimes, I believe), they SHOULD be set free. It allows us to keep in jail current dangers to society, and allows that person to be beneficial to society.
I agree that in the case of capital punishment cases, the alternative shouldn't be life w/ parole, but life w/o parole. The problem in your case is either that the state in question did not have the death penalty (to which I reccommend that you push for life w/o parole), or the person was not up for capital punishment anyway. If you are implying that all murderers should get a minimum of life w/o parole, and preferably the death penalty, I think that is a harsher stance than anyone has discussed here, and you should elaborate on it, I think it would be interesting, and I could definitely be sympathetic to mandatory life w/o parole (if not death penalty for all murderers).
Reform -- I have actually thought a lot about that. The kid that killed my dad was 22 or 23 when he did this. No prior record, no personal reason, no provocation, etc. Just felt like doing it, I guess. So what if he "reforms"? As a Christian, I'm supposed to forgive, is that not right? 1) How do I know that he is reformed -- we are not given updates on his behavior in prison -- that is not releasable information. 2) If this was a random whim, how do I know he won't just "feel like it" again once he is out? I guess it is BECAUSE there are no guarantees that he won't victimize another family that I don't want to take the risk of putting him back on the street. One year I refused to go to the parole hearing (my family was very displeased) because I felt he SHOULD have to be released so that I would quit supporting him, and he would have to support himself, and make his own way, and find that life is tough. But IF he had been released and then killed someone else, I would never have been able to live with myself.
You are right -- at the time of this murder, our state did not have the death penalty, or even the "hard 40" for capital murder. Life sentence was the hardest thing, and that simply meant "in prison for 15 years, then you come up for parole". That was all they had.
So while there are tougher sentences now, they are not retro, obviously. Which I guess brings up an ethical dilemma all in and of itself -- if someone now commits a capital murder and is sentenced to death penalty, but someone who did a same or worse offense 20 years ago is not under that law, how is that fair or just?
Kansas now has the Hard 40 for 1st degree murder, as well as the death penalty for capital. We have several on death row, but none executed yet, that I know of.
posted
Well, you never know. You either need to be hopeful of people changing effectively (which in such a personal case is likely impossible), or take heart in the fact that the odds are on the side of the kid not backsliding, statistically speaking (also not very convincing).
Of course, it isn't like your family's opinion is the make it/break it for whether or not parole is granted (is this actually the case everywhere?). They do a much greater report on eligibility based on prison behavior, psych work-ups, the convicts own interview with the board, and probably a bunch of other stuff. So even if you family was all FOR parole, I don't think that he would be paroled on that alone.
Which is all moot, because you obviously strongly, and you may be right (you have more info on this particular case than I).
posted
I'd also add that from the sound of it, this kid would never have been up for the death penalty even if it did exist at the time, but the "hard 40" could be better than "parole review at 15", though I still tend to think ill of mandatory sentences. If this kid does turn it around, say 25 years in, it seems unjust to not allow a review for parole for another 15 years, and probably in a few cases would be detrimental to reforming them in the first place.
I think retro-active sentencing would be a good thing, but is also likely a boondoggle from a review standpoint: what new sentence does an old sentence of X deserve? So short of that, I think you have to see the like of retro-sentencing a cost for society trying to figure out how we out to work, unfortunately.
quote:But, I'm human and small just like the rest. And it's easy for me to believe that certain actions cause you to give up your right to life. In fact, my threshold is probably lower than a lot of peoples. Break into my house and threaten my family and as far as I'm concerned you've forfeited your existence. So the guy who raped two little girls and buried them in his back yard is a no brainer.
Except we're not interest in finding out what is easiest to believe. We want to know which is right.
(As a general rule, I think it's easier to believe things that fulfill your emotional whims, except in cases where the evidence against your whims is pretty darn obvious. But in many questionable cases, emotion is wrong, even if it feels easy to believe it is right.)
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Which is all moot, because you obviously strongly, and you may be right (you have more info on this particular case than I).
Your opinions are definately NOT moot -- that is why I have read this thread with such interest -- because I have felt "on the fence" for so long on this issue.
Back right after the murder, when my heart was filled with anger, I was definately pro-death penalty. Very vengence-minded.
But I've mellowed with age. I've learned that many things in life are not so black & white when it comes to right&wrong and certain issues.
So while you can rightly say I'm passionate about this issue -- I'm also can fully see both sides of the argument. And I haven't declared myself to be on either side at this point.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
