Is that intended to be support or counterargument? I should think that it would be support, because there is no hierarchy there in the words. And therefore all three rights are equally privileged.
302. Ronski - Dec. 8, 1998 - 2:26 PM PT
Elliot,
Vengeance implies a lack of reason. Reason is not lacking in many individuals who wish to see a murderer removed from the world.
303. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 8, 1998 - 2:27 PM PT
Resonance (Message #278)
Each of these is a distinct goal of imprisonment under the current criminal justice system:
• retribution (punishment)
• incapacitation of criminals
• rehabilitation of criminals
• deterrence of criminals
But three of them are morally suspect.
1) When you lock up a murderer in order to protect the rest of society from
him, what does that mean? From the criminal's point of view, it means society has made an implicitly statistical determination that he is likely to be dangerous once again. Then, unlike retribution, which is punishment of past actions, this "incapacitation" amounts to punishment of possible future actions, or pre-punishment.
2) Even rehabilitation is predicated on the unknown probability of recividism. Once again, the focus is on future actions.
3) As for deterrence, it's the use of an actual criminal to send adverse signals to potential criminals and therefore fundamentally unrelated to the actual crime committed.
Therefore, under three of the four rationales, the imprisoned criminal is enduring a hardship or incurring a cost for actions he has not committed.
The point, of course, is that despite all the criminological doublespeak about rationales for imprisonment, they REDUCE to punishment pure and simple. Insofar as imprisonment punishes past actions, it can be just, but it is also unnecessary because it won't undo the crime. Insofar as imprisonment punishes future actions, it is plainly unjust, but it is also necessary because society fears recidivism.
If you have no moral problems with a punishment such as life imprisonment which features both unjust and unnecessary elements, then surely you oughtn't object to the death penalty, which also has unjust and unnecessary elements. Thus, my conclusion: punishment is punishment, retribution is retribution.
304. resonance - Dec. 8, 1998 - 2:28 PM PT
Sigh. And as far as this Texas nonsense.
It doesn't matter, at all, how heinous a crime we can come up with. Unless you want the law to be decided on an emotional and not a rational basis. This loser in Texas might have killed several *hundred* women in ways *quite* more graphic and offensive, and it *still* wouldn't offer any logical reason why we should kill him instead of isolating him from the general population.
So, explain it to me. Be blunt. From first principles. Logically. Why should we kill him?
305. Jenerator - Dec. 8, 1998 - 2:28 PM PT
So the victim, who never got to choose for himself to have life imprisonment, is murdered, and the killer can have life imprisonment?That says that the life of the killer is more valuable than the victim, and that we do not see that the highest crime deserves the highest punishment. Premeditated murder is no worse than armed robbery, 3-stikes laws, or rape then.
306. marshame - Dec. 8, 1998 - 2:28 PM PT
ChristinO
Sorry, I'm not ignoring you. I thought I was responsive to you in my post about ensuring that defendants get an adequate defense.
In my state, there is no such thing as life without possibility of parole. If there were, then I would take a "life sentance" more seriously. As it is, we have people who have murdered who are out in as little as 8 years. I think that is frightening, especially is there is nothing resembling rehabilitation going on in the prisons.
In the case I was involved in, the choice was 15 years or death. In 15 years, the defendant will be 42 years old. And he will have spent 15 years nursing a grudge and learning Lord knows what in prison.
So I would say that we need judicial and prison reform. However, I still believe the death penalty should be an option for the most grievous and heinous crimes.
307. CalGal - Dec. 8, 1998 - 2:28 PM PT
Retribution is not an emotion, Jade.
308. elliot803 - Dec. 8, 1998 - 2:29 PM PT
marshame:
"With your outlook, you can be confident you will never be picked as a juror on a capital murder trial. You are basically saying that no matter the mountain of evidence, there is always an element of doubt,..."
OF COURSE there's always an element of doubt. If you don't understand this, you are unfit to serve on a jury. The standard for conviction in criminal cases is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" not "proof beyond all doubt." Didn't the judge explain that to you?
"...and even if there were not, you could not vote for the death penalty."
Nothing I have said implies that. I'm not sure how I'd vote in a death penalty case even if I were convinced of the defendant's guilt.
"So by your hard headedness, you are handing over the jury duty and decision making to the very people you condemn."
Nonsense.
309. marshame - Dec. 8, 1998 - 2:35 PM PT
Why execute rather than life in prison? Well, we just had a "death row jail break" last week, and seven of 'em got loose.
There was an interesting case this past Spring of Carla Faye Tucker. She was on death row for a hatchet murder of three people. In the 15 or so years she has been on death row, she became a Christian and everyone who knew her attested to the fact that she had completely changed and if ever there was a case for commuting a sentance from execution to life in prison, it was Carla Faye.
There was a great deal of discussion about it on Christian radio. Gov. George Bush refused to commute her sentance, and she was executed, the first woman to be put to death in quite a number of years. The consensus I heard on the Christian talk shows was that it was wonderful and terrific that she was born again and had changed her life etc. etc. But the death penalty was her punishment (yes, Elliot, you're right) for killing those three people, and nothing she did after the fact could or would change the fact that she had to pay the consequence for her crime.
310. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 8, 1998 - 2:35 PM PT
Message #233
Message #278
Execution is not necessary. I had no idea it had to be necessary in order for it to be justified. We proponents of capital punishment would like to get satisfaction.
Plus, we're fast approaching the age when the Elliots of the world won't even let us eat well-killed calves. Where else can we get indulge bloodlust?
311. elliot803 - Dec. 8, 1998 - 2:37 PM PT
Jenerator:
"What is suspect about this one?"
I don't know. I don't know that there is anything suspect. The point is that you appear to consider the fact that a confession was made at all to establish guilt beyond all doubt, and I'm pointing out that that's nonsense.
"Elliot, please don't be so dense. The samples they had they took from the crime scene *5* years prior to finding the killer through fingerprint analysis. Do you mean to tell me that the police "could have" collected the crime scene evidence (which was enormous and all pointed to ONE person) and then waited to find someone it matched, or that there was some sort of huge conspiracy in which the police collected DNA, blood, semen, fingerprints, hair, skin, and saliva from the killer, and then "planted" it at the scene?"
It doesn't need to be a huge conspiracy, just a couple of rogue cops.
But the bigger point here is that you seem to believe that a reliable conclusion about the guilt of the accused in this case can be established simply by discussing the evidence here in the Fray. Have you ever heard the term "Kangaroo Court?" Your gullibility, your lack of skepticism, your willingness to condemn without really knowing the truth, are chilling.
312. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 8, 1998 - 2:37 PM PT
Message #295
There's no problem with it.
313. Ronski - Dec. 8, 1998 - 2:39 PM PT
PE,
Japanese artificially blood-flavored tofu concoctions? Another market triumph on the way?
314. elliot803 - Dec. 8, 1998 - 2:40 PM PT
Jenerator:
"The overwhelming physical evidence and signed, videotaped confession, and witness testimony makes me "blind"?"
No, your insistence that there is no doubt makes you blind.
315. marshame - Dec. 8, 1998 - 2:40 PM PT
Raskolnikov -
Re jurors being biased to capital punishment, when it is a litmus test for serving - I agree. It only took the jury about 3 hours to bring in a death sentence (after a two-week long trial). I had truly believed they would "sleep on it" before rendering such a verdict, in order to be sure that no one had any serious doubts. But they did not seem to have a problem coming to this decision.
Elliot
I was a witness, not a juror.
316. elliot803 - Dec. 8, 1998 - 2:45 PM PT
marshame:
"The consensus I heard on the Christian talk shows was that it was wonderful and terrific that she was born again and had changed her life etc. etc. But the death penalty was her punishment (yes, Elliot, you're right) for killing those three people, and nothing she did after the fact could or would change the fact that she had to pay the consequence for her crime."
Consensus? Please. Pat Robertson led the fight to get her sentence commuted. And she certainly didn't "have" to be killed. The only reason she was killed is that people like you wanted her to be killed. There was no imperative about it.
317. resonance - Dec. 8, 1998 - 2:46 PM PT
PE
And, once again, we can equally well say that we are punishing a visible tendency to commit crime. We have absolutely *no* reason to believe that the criminal will not offend again in the same circumstances. Indeed, we have a good reason to believe that he/she will not: there was no negative consequence to the action, and it was presumably beneficial to the criminal in some way. So we are conditioning against the criminal's present tendency to commit crime.This is not an unknown quantity. There's nothing putative about it.
AS far as rehabilitation -- no matter how flawed the process -- we are once agian treating a *known* condition. The condition is the criminal's demonstrable capacity to commit crime. There's nothing up in the air about that, PE -- we know that they will commit crimes. And rehabilitation is aimed at that capacity, in essence. In fact, we can argue, such a punishment is the only thing which makes it ethically possible to eventually *return* that criminal to the general population. Otherwise, they must remain apart from society.
Yes, you have a point about deterrence. But deterrence can be seen as a side effect to a process which is already justified three times over, and not a justification in and of itself.
So, no, I don't accept that it simply reduces to punishment alone. Because we *do* incapacitate for sufficient reasons and we *do* rehabilitate for sufficient reasons.
318. Jenerator - Dec. 8, 1998 - 2:48 PM PT
Marshame,
Did you read #311?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!:)
(It's an inside thing)
319. resonance - Dec. 8, 1998 - 2:49 PM PT
"If you have no moral problems with a
punishment such as life imprisonment which
features both unjust and unnecessary elements,
then surely you oughtn't object to the death
penalty, which also has unjust and unnecessary
elements."
This smacks of closet absolutism. We can judge for ourselves where we ought to draw the line. What's wrong with an arbitrary decision, if it fulfills our needs and doesn't exceed our wishes, and is in general keeping with the beliefs our country was founded upon?
320. marshame - Dec. 8, 1998 - 2:50 PM PT
Oh that's right Elliot, I keep forgetting, you know my life better than me.
Yes, Pat Robertson made an appeal to the governor. But he did not have the support of many Christians. And I am talking about the consensus of those calling in on Christian talk radio in Dallas.
And now to your most preposterous and insulting comment of the day:
"The only reason she was killed is that people like you wanted her to be killed."
The only reason she was executed is because her punishment was carried out, as handed down in a trial of her peers and upheld throughout the gamut of appeals. I don't know anyone who *wanted* her to be killed; rather, they believed that justice must be carried out.
Also, if she could be spared because of a profession of religious conversion, does that mean that everyone who espouses Christ or any other sincerely held religious belief should then be spared?
321. elliot803 - Dec. 8, 1998 - 2:52 PM PT
Ronski:
"Elliot, Vengeance implies a lack of reason. Reason is not lacking in many individuals who wish to see a murderer removed from the world."
You're referring to incapacitation. Incapacitation does not require execution. There are other, cheaper, ways of doing it.
Really, why do you continue to claim that we execute people for rational reasons? We don't. We do it for emotional reasons. We do it to avenge the deaths of those we think they killed. Even advocates of the death penalty--the thoughtful and honest ones, that is, not the "closure" bullshitters--admit this.
322. resonance - Dec. 8, 1998 - 2:53 PM PT
"That
says that the life of the killer is more valuable
than the victim, and that we do not see that the
highest crime deserves the highest punishment."
No, no, no, no, it doesn't. If you feel otherwise, then by all means explain to me why it does. But you can't.
323. Seguine - Dec. 8, 1998 - 2:55 PM PT
Rask,
In Pennsylvania, the question is put to jurors this way: "Do you have any personal beliefs that prevent you from rendering judgment in a criminal case?"
I was called to jury duty last year. The prosecuting attorney asked this question of us all. From what I could see, at least 20% of the prospective jurors answered "yes", but ALL of them specified that they would be unable to render judgment only in a capital case.
Interestingly, all but one of those jurors who said they would be unable to render judgment was black.
324. resonance - Dec. 8, 1998 - 2:59 PM PT
Message #312
Thank you, PE. Though I didn't think you'd have much of a problem with it anyway. And I doubt that I'd get any such concession of Regan and Goneril over there. Hell, why'd I bother saying it?
And if I thought that you were serious about the 'not necessary but justified' gibberish, I'd answer that.
325. Seguine - Dec. 8, 1998 - 3:01 PM PT
"Plus, we're fast approaching the age when the Elliots of the world won't even let us eat well-killed calves. Where else can we get indulge bloodlust?"
Ice hockey, silly.
326. elliot803 - Dec. 8, 1998 - 3:01 PM PT
marshame:
"Yes, Pat Robertson made an appeal to the governor. But he did not have the support of many Christians. And I am talking about the consensus of those calling in on Christian talk radio in Dallas."
Well, Christian talk radio in Dallas is not representative even of wacky fundamentalists like you and Pat. He got thousands of his minions to plea for clemency on Tucker's behalf.
"The only reason she was executed is because her punishment was carried out, as handed down in a trial of her peers and upheld throughout the gamut of appeals. I don't know anyone who *wanted* her to be killed; rather, they believed that justice must be carried out."
Sophistry. Why don't you take responsibility for your actions? Nothing FORCED anyone to support the execution of Tucker. They did it because they WANTED HER TO BE KILLED, whether you call this "justice" or anything else.
327. marshame - Dec. 8, 1998 - 3:07 PM PT
Elliot
Fine. There was no consensus, or everyone is a follower of Pat Robertson. Whatever. I agree that Dallas Christian talk radio is not particularly indicative of anything.
Carla Faye Tucker was executed because she was found guilty of murdering three people with an ax. The number of times she struck them was something obscene. A jury of her peers, after listening to the defense argue for some (any) mitigating factors, sentenced her to death. Her case went through the entire gamut of appeals available to her, including the appeal of famous people to the governor to commute her sentence. The governor did not, and her warrant of execution was carried out.
It was not a matter of public sentiment or polls. Capital punishment is legal in this state for select crimes that meet the criteria. THAT is what cause the lawful execution of Carla Faye Tucker. Not me or the minions of Pat Robertson or anything else.
Why don't you answer my question about the argument that her sentance should be commuted to life because of her religious conversion and changed life? Would you have been satified if her sentence was commuted on that basis?
328. resonance - Dec. 8, 1998 - 3:09 PM PT
" Indeed, we have a good
reason to believe that he/she will not: "
This, of course, shouldn't have that last 'not' in it. That's from 317.
329. elliot803 - Dec. 8, 1998 - 3:16 PM PT
marshame:
"It was not a matter of public sentiment or polls. Capital punishment is legal in this state for select crimes that meet the criteria. THAT is what cause the lawful execution of Carla Faye Tucker. Not me or the minions of Pat Robertson or anything else."
Yes, yes, but the reason the death penalty is on the books is because people like you support it. People are executed in America in part because you, personally, want them to be executed. So stop trying to deny any responsibility for it.
But I also think the sentence would very likely have been commuted if more people had protested. Public opinion *does* matter beyond just shaping the law.
"Why don't you answer my question about the argument that her sentance should be commuted to life because of her religious conversion and changed life? Would you have been satified if her sentence was commuted on that basis?"
I would never accept a religious conversion in itself as a legitimate reason for commutation. But some genuine evidence of rehabilitation would certainly qualify. But then I don't need any "changed life" reason to commute a death sentence, anyway, since I oppose it for all the reasons I've already explained.
330. elliot803 - Dec. 8, 1998 - 3:28 PM PT
Rask:
"I personally find the "revokability" argument against erroneous sentencing quite valid."
Everyone seems to find it valid except pseudo, whose "rebuttal" of the argument makes no sense to anyone except him. I see he's now moved on to his equally nonsensical "punishment for future acts" theory.
331. Seguine - Dec. 8, 1998 - 3:34 PM PT
Could someone please explain to me the functional difference between revenge and punishment?
332. CoralReef - Dec. 8, 1998 - 3:44 PM PT
Revenge vs. punishment
You can punish people for no particular reason, or for reasons unrelated to their offenses. When it's directly related to what they did, then from what I understand punishment = revenge. Also, revenge tends to imply the person who was injured is doing or causing the punishment, at least as one definition of that word. Arguable the state isn't taking revenge on the harm done to the victim but on the breaking of the state's rules.
333. CoralReef - Dec. 8, 1998 - 3:48 PM PT
The above was according to definitions in my American Heritage dictionary. If anyone has any other -- for example legal -- knowledge about the difference, I'd be interested in hearing that too.
334. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 8, 1998 - 3:48 PM PT
Resonance (Message #317)
Whether you call it a "visible tendency to commit crime" or a "demonstrable [demonstrated?] capacity to commit crime", these things still refer to future and potential actions. After all, it is only because you fear that the criminal may commit another crime that you say he has a tendency and a capacity for crime. And "capability" and "tendency" are sloppy proxies for probability. The same with rehabilitation. If you didn't fear recidivism, there wouldn't be any need for rehabilitation.
Incapacitation and rehabilitation are all current punishments for crimes yet uncommitted.
Message #324
I'm quite serious about "not necessary but justified".
elliot803 (Message #330)
There is nothing nonsensical about my argument that incarceration is in part punishment for future crimes. The argument is invulnerable.
335. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 8, 1998 - 3:49 PM PT
Message #331: Zero.
336. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 8, 1998 - 3:56 PM PT
Re: the "revocability" argument
We can always just raise the standard for determining guilt in capital cases, so that conviction on the higher standard would merit execution, and conviction on the lower standard, only life imprisonment. I don't see any problem with this approach.
But I still don't see why people who are willing to take the risk of wrongful imprisonment aren't willing to take the risk of wrongful execution. What happens to those who, wrongfully imprisoned for life, end up dying in prison nonetheless (just like the father in the movie "In the Name of the Father") ? Is taking the risk of wrongful imprisonment in such a case justified because the convict had a sporting chance of exoneration in the 40 years before his death in prison?
337. Seguine - Dec. 8, 1998 - 3:56 PM PT
Resonance,
"And the right to life is privileged, in this system, as a general rule. Yet this privileging is entirely arbitrary, because if you agree that the government has the *RIGHT* to take even one of your rights away, then in principle the government's right trumps your right. Because all our individual rights have the same genesis -- we decide we've a right, and that's that. It isn't graven in stone someplace."
The paragraphs before and after this one are not debatable, as far as I'm concerned. But this one is. As it happens, the "right" to life *is* supposedly engraved in stone someplace. "We" decided it was before the Consitution was written. Moreover, the bit in the founding document about rights is prefaced by, "...that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights...". Now, the Constitution may guarantee the right to life, liberty, and security in one's property. But it is religion--and the Christian tradition *in particular*--which supplies extra-textual weight to exactly one of the Constitutionally enumerated rights: the right to life. (I wouldn't argue that Judaism does.)
The Constitution derives its assumptions about rights from theology. Otherwise, there would have been no need of mentioning the "Creator".
The following excerpts from posts in this thread ALL suggest, in tone and content, a religious source for otherwise arbitrary opinions. Such opinions, as CalGal avers, cannot be addressed rationally, via arguments for what is necessary, reasonable, etc.
338. CalGal - Dec. 8, 1998 - 3:57 PM PT
Seguine,
I disagree with Pseudo. Strictly speaking, they are entirely different words. Neither is considered synonymous with the other--at least in Webster's.
Revenge has the added connotation of vengeance and retaliation. Punishment has no such overtones.
Speaking for myself, I use "revenge" when referring to something done *to* the offender. I use punishment to refer to something taken *away* from the offender.
Revenge is owned by the offended party. Punishment is owned by the offender.
Even if it is the same act. If you follow.
I *killed* the bastard who murdered my father. I took my revenge.
or
The state sentences you to death (takes away your right to live) for killing Joe Smith. This is your punishment.
339. Seguine - Dec. 8, 1998 - 3:59 PM PT
CalGal: (agin it) "It is inherently different to punish someone by killing them than by imprisoning them. I see no reason for agovernment to take life if there is another alternative.
No. To me, it is simply wrong for the state to take a life as a means of punishment. One either sees the value of that position or one doesn't.
I believe that capital punishment will end when the majority of people
share that moral view. Until they do, I see no point in trying to argue practicalities with anyone who believes that killing someone as
punishment is acceptable. This is a fundamental rift."
ChristiPeters: (agin it)
"I am against the death penalty because I believe it is wrong to kill a human being. I believe it is as wrong for the state to kill as it is for an individual. I feel no need to dress up my belief with reasons
concerning whether death is or is not a *proper* punishment, or
deterrent. I also feel no need to justify my belief to anyone."
Jenerator: (fur it) "So the victim, who never got to choose for himself to have life imprisonment, is murdered, and the killer can have life imprisonment? That says that the life of the killer is more valuable than the victim, and that we do not see that the highest crime deserves the highest punishment."
Elliot: (agin it) "[W]hy do you continue to claim that we execute people for rational reasons? We don't. We do it for emotional reasons. We do it to avenge the deaths of those we think they killed."
340. CoralReef - Dec. 8, 1998 - 4:03 PM PT
"punishment" does tend to imply an authority that has a right to punish, whereas revenge doesn't imply that.
341. CalGal - Dec. 8, 1998 - 4:05 PM PT
Coral,
Yes, I should have mentioned that. Thanks for picking up on it.
342. Seguine - Dec. 8, 1998 - 4:06 PM PT
Note that CalGal and ChristiPeters use the formulation "it is wrong"--wrong to take a life, wrong for the state to take a life, wrong.
Jenerator applies the Old Testament to her reasoning: the highest punishment for the highest ccrime. An eye for an eye.
Elliot is a good Christian: revenge, he implies, is wrong.
343. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 8, 1998 - 4:07 PM PT
Seguine asked whether there was a functional difference, not whether there were any differences at all, between punishment and retribution.
344. CoralReef - Dec. 8, 1998 - 4:11 PM PT
Odd that Jenerator didn't follow the NT: turn the other cheek.
345. bubbaette - Dec. 8, 1998 - 4:13 PM PT
Punishment does imply some type of authority to adminster, where as revenge does not. Therefore, I would imagine the punishment is sanctioned while revenge or retribution may not be.
346. CoralReef - Dec. 8, 1998 - 4:15 PM PT
PE: well in the functional sense they're even more different. If you drag someone off to a dungeon who killed your goldfish, that's revenge. If the state incarcerates that person, that's punishment.
347. Seguine - Dec. 8, 1998 - 4:15 PM PT
Thus far we have one revenge=punishment (PE). We have one revenge‚punishment (CalGal). And we have one revenge by the state=punishment, revenge by individuals‚punishment.
I asked for the definition of the *functional* difference, so I have to concur at this point with PE: there is no difference between punishment and revenge. Punishment is the principal retribution we exact from murderers. I don't see how any form or degree of punishment can be advocated by people who believe that revenge is immoral.
348. CalGal - Dec. 8, 1998 - 4:17 PM PT
Pseudo, Message #343:
Fair enough. Is this difference I described functional? I think so. Were it generally accepted that prosecution of criminals is for revenge, more attention and concern would be paid to the victim of the crime (or the family). A family might be consulted as to whether or not the death penalty would be pursued, or be consulted in the matter of plea agreements. They are more often these days, but it is still optional.
This difference, and the lack of any real participation by the family or victim, is because the government is punishing criminals, not seeking revenge for itself or the criminal's victims.
I agree that from the criminal's position, there is no functional difference between the two.
349. ChristinO - Dec. 8, 1998 - 4:18 PM PT
Jen RE Message #305
"So the victim, who never got to choose for himself to have life imprisonment, is murdered, and the killer can have life imprisonment?"
That says that the life of the killer is more valuable than the victim, and that we do not see that the highest crime deserves the highest punishment. Premeditated murder is no worse than armed robbery, 3-stikes laws, or rape then."
It seems your argument is that our judicial system is obligated to be as barbarous as the most heinous of criminals. Why not torture and rape them in addition to incarcerating and executing them?
And how does this account for the lives of the innocent condemned to death? They are murder victims too. Why are their lives less important than punishing the guilty? How is it okay to pay off their families when the families of other victims get the satisfaction of knowing the killer was put to death?
I'm not trying to be combative I just don't understand how one can claim that some innocent victims are worth taking a life and others are not.
350. Seguine - Dec. 8, 1998 - 4:18 PM PT
Fuck it. My lovely 'not equal' signs did not translate Frayward. Please read the unspaced commas as "does not equal".
351. bubbaette - Dec. 8, 1998 - 4:19 PM PT
Would it be considered a functional difference that there is less chance of interferrence with state-imposed revenge than with individual revenge?
352. cartman69 - Dec. 8, 1998 - 4:23 PM PT
Jade:
Message #300 Well, I was being a bit facetious when I suggested Dodd should have been drawn & quartered. While I don't have a problem with the state having the power to take a life, after due process, I certainly don't endorse state-sanctioned torture (although some might rightly point out that that's exactly what prison is).
Saying that "we don't rape rapists, or embezzle from embezzlers" is glib, especially considering that sex offenders generally ARE victimized by other prisoners, and white-collar criminals have to pay huge fines in addition to prison time.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not a gung-ho pro-death guy; in fact, I voted for the only major NON-CP candidate in the CA gov. election last month. So it's not a make-or-break issue for me. But I have absolutely no qualms over the state killing a piece of shit like Westley Dodd or John Gacy. Their existence was very likely an affront to the families of the victims. Not that I buy that "closure" shit. As I stated very early in this thread, CP is payback, pure & simple. The state is doing what the victims' families would like to do to these people.
Whether or not CP is fairly applied is inarguable: it's not fairly applied. But that's a matter of practice, not principle. In principle, applied to a Gacy or Dodd, CP is entirely justified. People like them excused themselves from the human race when they began their nefarious deeds.
353. CalGal - Dec. 8, 1998 - 4:26 PM PT
I disagree that there is no fundamental difference between revenge and punishment (see Message #348). However, I agree that "revenge is wrong" is a ridiculous argument--I believe I said so earlier. Killing a person is no more "revenge" than imprisoning them--it's just a more severe form.
I can't tell if Seguine is distinguishing between the different "this is wrong" arguments--from my perspective, ChristiP, alistair, and I have all said close to the same thing. Elliot's is quite different--more in line with JadeGold's "retribution isn't the state's business"--which is a variant form of "revenge is wrong".
354. Jenerator - Dec. 8, 1998 - 4:32 PM PT
Resonance,
Re Message #322
Me:"That says that the life of the killer is more valuable than the victim, and that we do not see that the highest crime deserves the highest punishment."
You: "No, no, no, no, it doesn't. If you feel otherwise, then by all means explain to me why it does. But you can't."
To me, a society that is unwilling to impose the penalty of death upon those who murder in cold blood is a society that has deserted its responsibility to uphold the unique value of human life. It is a mockery of justice by considering the life of an offender of more value than the life of an innocent victim who did not even have the *luxury* of choosing life inprisonment. Punishment for a crime and restitution for the victim are interrelated concepts. In the case of premeditated murder, compensation is not available as an alternative; thus it should carry a mandatory death sentence, in recognition of the sacred character of human life.
355. resonance - Dec. 8, 1998 - 4:34 PM PT
"Incapacitation and rehabilitation are all current
punishments for crimes yet uncommitted."
No, they aren't. Negative reinforcement or punishment of a tendency may be carried out with an eye to the future, but they still focus upon a very real tendency in the present. They are administered to someone in the present to correct a tendency in the present, so that the tendency to commit future crimes is removed. You can't punish someone for something that hasn't happened yet -- it's impossible to do so.
If your rationale were correct, then we would also be in the business of punishing law-abiding citizens to make sure that they don't break the law in the future. We aren't, though.
What's the difference between a convicted criminal and a law-abiding citizen? The criminal has demonstrated a tendency to break the law. The law abiding citizen has not. That's why we incapacitate and rehabilitate criminals and not law-abiding citizens. Otherwise, PE, we'd just incapacitate and rehabilitate anyone who's deemed merely capable of breaking the law -- which, I would suspect, would be everyone. And, once again, we don't do that.
"I'm quite serious about "not necessary but justified"."
Oh, give over. With all your pragmatism, you can't see any necessity to kill a convict. You don't believe that it deters violence. You recognize that the condemned man has a right to life, and you don't have a problem with arbitrarily limiting those rights which the State can't subvert, so that life can't be taken by a court of law. And you still think it's justified to kill someone in the name of revenge? No, you don't. It's a ridiculous pose.
356. CalGal - Dec. 8, 1998 - 4:34 PM PT
Message #337
"The following excerpts from posts in this thread ALL suggest, in tone and content, a religious source for otherwise arbitrary opinions."
I dunno about religious. One can have moral views that don't spring from religion, yes?
It will no doubt shock you to learn that I don't believe logic by definition reigns supreme. I do believe it is important to *know* when a view is driven by a strong conviction that has no inherent logical reasoning behind it.
357. resonance - Dec. 8, 1998 - 4:35 PM PT
"But I still don't see why people who are willing
to take the risk of wrongful imprisonment aren't
willing to take the risk of wrongful execution.
What happens to those who, wrongfully
imprisoned for life, end up dying in prison
nonetheless (just like the father in the movie "In
the Name of the Father") ? Is taking the risk of
wrongful imprisonment in such a case justified
because the convict had a sporting chance of
exoneration in the 40 years before his death in
prison?"
This is silly, and you keep repeating it. Either we junk government completely, or else we accept it. Government requires some form of maintaining order. We cannot have a perfect and feasible system of law, because we do not have perfect information and because anything even close to it would require too many resources for government to be viable. Therefore there will be cases in which law and justice do not find themselves in agreement.
Given that, the idea is to minimize the discrepancy, yes? If we believe that justice is important and so is law?
358. resonance - Dec. 8, 1998 - 4:36 PM PT
For all this 'both wrongful life imprisonment and wrongful execution are unacceptable' tripe, any moron can see that the former is preferable to the latter. And we realize that we must incapacitate criminals, in order to maintain a well-ordered state. It is necessary to isolate them. We must keep them from the populace if our society is to function. If we wish to be governed, we must accept the existence of some form of incapacitation. Therefore, we must accept the potential for error in incapacitation, and strive against that potential. The reason we must accept such is because we have to if we are to be governed -- it is that simple.
However, there is no corresponding need to accept the death penalty. And therefore there is no need to accept the potential for error when we execute someone, which any fool can see is greater than the potential for error in simple imprisonment.
359. ChristinO - Dec. 8, 1998 - 4:36 PM PT
PE: Re Message #310
Thanks, but it has never ocurred to me that you might come up squeamish about admitting to barbarism. I appreciate that about you. (daily bread, guy)
How about this:
One punishment for any and all felonies: Execution.
No appeals.
No delay.
Guilty in the afternoon dead by morning.
As for wrongful incarceration v wrongful execution the reason that the one is acceptable to me and not the other is that incarceration is necessary whereas execution is not. As long as we agree that something must be done then that is the case. It's terrible that innocent people are punished, but the net detriment to punishing no one is unacceptable whereas no one has offered any legitamate detriment to abolishing execution.
360. Jenerator - Dec. 8, 1998 - 4:38 PM PT
Cartman69,
When Dodd's death sentence was given, he said this later in the Supreme Court
(and with a smile)
"I liked molesting children and did what I had to do (raped and stabbed two brothers, aged 4 and 10, and a month later abducted a 4 yr old boy from school, molested, tortured, then hanged him)
to avoid jail so I could continue molesting".
"I think I got more of a high out of killing than molesting."
361. resonance - Dec. 8, 1998 - 4:39 PM PT
" But it is religion--and the
Christian tradition *in particular*--which
supplies extra-textual weight to exactly one of
the Constitutionally enumerated rights: the right
to life. (I wouldn't argue that Judaism does.) "
Exodus 22:18. Part of the Christian tradition. The right is mitigated.
362. resonance - Dec. 8, 1998 - 4:39 PM PT
" But it is religion--and the
Christian tradition *in particular*--which
supplies extra-textual weight to exactly one of
the Constitutionally enumerated rights: the right
to life. (I wouldn't argue that Judaism does.) "
Exodus 22:18. Part of the Christian tradition. The right is mitigated.
363. ChristinO - Dec. 8, 1998 - 4:40 PM PT
cp, Res
364. Jenerator - Dec. 8, 1998 - 4:45 PM PT
CoralReef,
Re Message #344
"Odd that Jenerator didn't follow the NT: turn the other cheek."
Someone commits premeditated murder and I am to "turn the other cheek"? WHERE in the Bible does it say that I am to turn a blind eye to the highest crime?
Also, I like Luke and Romans with regard to the death penalty. (I'm still waiting for Jade to show me how the death penalty is "un-Biblical").
365. resonance - Dec. 8, 1998 - 4:47 PM PT
"To me, a society that is unwilling to impose the
penalty of death upon those who murder in cold
blood is a society that has deserted its
responsibility to uphold the unique value of
human life."
Oh, my. Everyone, read this as many times as you have to until you catch the irony. It's delicious. Let's see, killing is wrong because human life is of unique value. So, if someone does something wrong, we kill them? (insert clown car noise here)
"In the case of premeditated murder,
compensation is not available as an alternative;
thus it should carry a mandatory death sentence,
in recognition of the sacred character of human
life."
Look, Jenerator, I just can't take you seriously if you can say such contradictory tripe. I don't want to be rude per se but the above is just silly. Human life is sacred in and of itself, so we should kill anyone who takes it? That's to say, we should deprive them of their human life? No matter what kind of clusterf@#$ed mitigation you might want to append to the value of human life when it suits your own needs, it's still sacred in and of itself, by your reasoning. It's human life.
366. resonance - Dec. 8, 1998 - 4:50 PM PT
"WHERE in the
Bible does it say that I am to turn a blind eye to
the highest crime?"
I dunno, the Commandments? Where does your Jesus say that one ought to execute anyone for anything? How many times is the opposite case -- that we should respect life -- made in the NT? You know, that inspired work where everything is true and we should follow it? Except for when we want to kill someone in our 'righteous' rage?
367. CoralReef - Dec. 8, 1998 - 4:50 PM PT
No, Jenerator, I don't think you're to turn the other cheek. But I do think that's NT, whereas what you quoted -- the eye for eye bit -- is OT. And you're more of a NT person, no? That's all.
368. patsyrolph - Dec. 8, 1998 - 4:55 PM PT
Thank you Res:
I had been reduced to open mouthed astonishmemt at the concept that sacred life can be celebrated by killing. (I knew I should stay out of this thread.)
369. ChristinO - Dec. 8, 1998 - 4:57 PM PT
Jen:
"To me, a society that is unwilling to impose the penalty of death upon those who murder in cold blood is a society that has deserted its responsibility to uphold the unique value of human life. It is a mockery of justice by considering the life of an offender of more value than the life of an innocent victim who did not even have the *luxury* of choosing life inprisonment."
And it's not a cold blooded murder when the state executes an innocent victim? Who pays for that? Who pays with his life for sending an innocent man to the gas chamber?
I cannot understand how killing shows that we value life. If it is that valuable there should be no exceptions and certainly not for our judicial system.
370. resonance - Dec. 8, 1998 - 5:04 PM PT
Lottery in June, Corn be heavy soon. Anybody else read Shirley Jackson? I hope so, because I think that's the sort of mentality that we're dealing with here. I say 'think' because I'm really sort of struck by awe at the level of contradiction here. And the townfolk never seemed bloodthirsty.
371. Jenerator - Dec. 8, 1998 - 5:07 PM PT
ChristinO,
re Message #349
"It seems your argument is that our judicial system is obligated to be as barbarous as the most heinous of criminals. Why not torture and rape them in addition to incarcerating and executing them?"
It seems that we (society) have grown increasingly intolerant of meting out criminal punishment that smacks of being "barbaric" or "inhumane". This loathing is oddly enough in the context of increasingly barbaric criminal acts themselves! (Gacy, Dodd, McDuff, Dahmer...) To me, this moral confusion is seen in the pretext of "compassion". Compassion that is directed toward the violent criminal (at the expense of the victim) is a moral-legal miscarriage of justice!! To me Christin, people should start reflecting on the sanctity of life *before* a murder is committed and not *after*. Clearly the goal of capital punishment is the preservation of human life. Those who take it, should be punished with the suitable punishment.
Although on some level I'd like it if Gacy were tortured, I see no real redemptive value in doing that. We are a "civilized nation", and we do not condone torture. I think that death by lethal injection should be the only method of execution because it is by far the most humane method.
"And how does this account for the lives of the innocent condemned to
death? They are murder victims too. Why are their lives less important than punishing the guilty?"
I agree that it is terrible if and when an innocent person is wrongly accused. I do not see their lives as less important.
(cont.)
372. Jenerator - Dec. 8, 1998 - 5:08 PM PT
"How is it okay to pay off their families when the families of other victims get the satisfaction of knowing the killer was put to death?"
I don't understand the question, why is it okay that those who have been wrongly accused and executed have monetary compensation, whereas the truly guilty don't?
"I'm not trying to be combative I just don't understand how one can claim that some innocent victims are worth taking a life and others are not."
Chris, you're not being combative! Unfortunately there will always be those who are innocent and punished, Whether it be for theft, drug posession, or even murder. I wish it weren't so.
373. resonance - Dec. 8, 1998 - 5:09 PM PT
Patsy:
Well, not to be ostentatious about it, but I was similarly struck by the contradiction. I just wasn't surprised by it.
374. CalGal - Dec. 8, 1998 - 5:13 PM PT
Actually, The Lottery was more about the casual acceptance of ritual, wouldn't you say? How anything dreadful can become normalized if you can just stop people thinking about it? Undoubtedly a simplistic interpretation (it's been years since I read it)--but I don't think it was about bloodlust.
Besides, the death penalty issue is often at the forefront of national debate and most people think about it a great deal--which is obvious by the spirited discussion going on. Quite the opposite of a meaningless ritual we all just take for granted.
We may, in fact, develop that mentality. I hope not. But at this point in time I don't see any similarity between support for the death penalty (bloodthirsty or not) and the unthinking cooperation with human sacrifice.
375. resonance - Dec. 8, 1998 - 5:19 PM PT
" This loathing is oddly enough in
the context of increasingly barbaric criminal acts
themselves! (Gacy, Dodd, McDuff, Dahmer...) "
Oh, yes, as we all know, these things never happened in the past. Inquisition, Auto-Da-Fe, tying prisoners between wild horses, drawing and quartering, torture, crucifixion, yadda yadda yadda. Modern stuff.
chuckle
"To
me, this moral confusion is seen in the pretext of
"compassion". Compassion that is directed
toward the violent criminal (at the expense of
the victim) is a moral-legal miscarriage of
justice!! "
Yes, we're so compassionate that we lock them up in maximum security. Really, one would think listening to you that we pamper them and let them drive expensive cars and provide them with oral sex upon demand. We don't, though. We lock them up in a place where no one wants to be. For a long time.
Don't you even realize the contradiction in your stance? Doesn't it even begin to dawn on you?
376. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 8, 1998 - 5:21 PM PT
resonance (Message #355)
Look, when you say that a person has a capability or a tendency for a crime, that's just a statement about his future actions based on evidence of past behaviour.
"They are administered to someone in the present to correct a tendency in the present, so that the tendency to commit future crimes is removed."
This is meaningless. "Tendency" or "capability" is the statistical likelihood of recidivism that happens to be indeterminate in the present.
"You can't punish someone for something that hasn't happened yet -- it's impossible to do so."
But you are, with "negative reinforcement".
"If your rationale were correct...."
What rationale? I'm not proposing a rationale. I'm reducing YOUR spurious rationales to what they actually are -- punishment of future actions.
"...then we would also be in the business of punishing law-abiding citizens to make sure that they don't break the law in the future. We aren't, though."
Well, by your reasoning, we should. Surely we can to some extent extrapolate an innocent person's tendency or capability for a crime before it is committed. Of course, that's ridiculous, but that's what "negative reinforcement" or "rehabilitation" amounts to -- making sure that the criminal doesn't commit crimes in the future.
377. Jenerator - Dec. 8, 1998 - 5:22 PM PT
Res,
I get too worked up when you turn into a sarcastic -------.
Let me put it in a nutshell before I leave for the night.
Since I am a Christian, of course my religious views influence my ethical decisions.
Beginning in Genesis, through Exodus, Num.,Deut., Eccl., Isaiah, Matt, Luke, and Romans, one of the recurring themes is that of the sanctity of life *and* the punishment against those who take it; crime and restitution. Premeditated murder calls for the most severe punishment- the death penalty.
An excellent book that I recommend you read (if you don't care for my logic but want to understand someone you may respect - with the same pov as me) is Walter Kaiser Jr.'s _Toward Old Testament Ethics_.
378. resonance - Dec. 8, 1998 - 5:22 PM PT
sigh
Learn to read, CalGal. Specifically, I'd suggest you start with the last sentence of Message #370. It more or less obviates the need for your silly 'clarification'. Have a nice day, CalGal.
379. ChristinO - Dec. 8, 1998 - 5:28 PM PT
Jen,
As long as we have capital punishment and an imperfect judicial system we will continue to condemn and execute innocent people. We cannot pass a single law and perfect our judicial system, but we can abolish the death penalty thereby allowing us the opportunity to exonerate and make restitution to the innocent. We cannot do that if they are already dead.
If the price for a civilian who takes an innocent life is death then how is it that when the State takes an innocent life they can just throw some money and an "Oh, sorry. We're not perfect. We made a mistake" to the victim's family.
If one innocent's life is worth a life how can another innocent's life be worth less? Or from the other side: If one man's life is worth 50K and a nice letter from the Governor how can we justify executing anyone for murder?
Additionally there is no proof that capital punishment deters crime other than to ensure that a condemned murderer is not the one who commits it. The purpose of capital punishment is just that: punishment. If execution is the worst we can do then why DON'T we torture inmates? Clearly because we see torture as beyond reasonable which negates the idea that execution is the ultimate punishment.
We're not willing (well, with the possible exception of PE, (g)) to go all the way. We're not willing to torture criminals but we are willing to kill them. This to me shows a devaluation of human life that killing is an acceptable choice.
380. Jenerator - Dec. 8, 1998 - 5:28 PM PT
Res,
"Yes, we're so compassionate that we lock them up in maximum security.
Really, one would think listening to you that we pamper them and let
them drive expensive cars and provide them with oral sex upon demand.
We don't, though. We lock them up in a place where no one wants to be.
For a long time"
You're right, I guess Richard Speck who was seen having sex on his own videotape, from his own videotape recorder, doing coke, and undergoing hormone treatment was REALLY being restricted.
Seems that prison had everything he wanted...freedom, homosexual sex, drugs, and hormone treatments. This is real severe punishment for a mass murderer, yeah!
381. Raskolnikov - Dec. 8, 1998 - 5:31 PM PT
Pseudo:"We can always just raise the standard for determining guilt in capital cases, so that conviction on the higher standard would merit execution, and conviction on the lower standard, only life imprisonment. I don't see any problem with this approach."
Well, then you are making a trade off by increasing the possibility that a guilty person goes free, which also has costs. This route is certainly possible, but as whether it is preferable or not to simply banning the death penalty depends on your preferences for avoiding future crimes by acquitted murderers, avoiding executing innocent people, and avoiding taxes for paying for life imprisonment.
"But I still don't see why people who are willing to take the risk of wrongful imprisonment aren't willing to take the risk of wrongful execution. What happens to those who, wrongfully imprisoned for life, end up dying in prison nonetheless (just like the father in the movie "In the Name of the Father") ? Is taking the risk of wrongful imprisonment in such a case justified because the convict had a sporting chance of exoneration in the 40 years before his death in prison?"
No one is going to justify the Father's imprisonment. I really don't see why you don't understand the contrary argument here. Imagine some equation for justice, such as
Justice = appropriateness of punishment for wrong done - (probability of wrongful conviction * cost of wrongful conviction)- (probability of wrongful aquittal * cost of wrongful acquitall)
Now, I'm sure you can add on to this equation with a few other things, but including the parenthetical calculations is a must, as far as I am concerned. So, in this calculation, we can increase justice several different ways. One of which is to decrease the costs of a wrongful conviction. In the case of innocent people being executed, I find that cost much higher than wrongfully imprisoning them for a few years, and taking the chanc
382. ChristinO - Dec. 8, 1998 - 5:33 PM PT
The Lottery is primarily about how we accept barbarous practices as long as it never occurs to us that they might be perpetuated upon us personally. It's also about the price we are willing to pay for some things. We're willing to pay with other peoples lives but not with our own or the lives of our children.
And with that I'm gone for the evening.
Don't any of you go getting picked up by the cops, now.
383. Raskolnikov - Dec. 8, 1998 - 5:33 PM PT
and taking the chance that they might die anyway.
384. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 8, 1998 - 5:35 PM PT
christino (Message #359)
"As for wrongful incarceration v wrongful execution the reason that the one is acceptable to me and not the other is that incarceration is necessary whereas execution is not..."
But the practical necessity of "incapacitating" criminals can be met without imprisonment. You could surely put the criminal under a kind of house arrest or glorified probation plus 24-hour surveillance by the police. Would be this be preposterously expensive? Yes, but at least it totally eliminates the risk of wrongful imprisonment for life, which carries the risk of natural or unnatural death in prison, or of such horrors as rape. Surely, if eliminating all the risk of wrongful execution is so important, then eliminating all the risk of unjustly spending decades in prison, dying in prison and gang rape should also be important, at WHATEVER cost. Hell, it's for justice's sake.
, even those who might have been wrongfully convicted, can't
385. arkymalarky - Dec. 8, 1998 - 5:37 PM PT
It is not inconsistent to support the death penalty in limited cases in a civilized society. Everything isn't all or nothing as so many have a tendency to argue it. The man who kidnapped, molested and brutally murdered the little girl Polly Klaus(sp) laughed in her father's face at his conviction. There is no redeeming value to society as a whole in grasping a moral ideal which insists on seeing such a man as a human capable of any humane qualities worth preserving. It needn't be revenge--just simple, relatively painless elimination of the offender from any possibility of doing harm to anyone else, in a case where rehabilitation is highly unlikely and the continuing existence of such a creature serves no good purpose.
386. Jenerator - Dec. 8, 1998 - 5:37 PM PT
Chris,
I hear what you're saying and I respect your pov, it's just I think when we value the life of a killer over that of his victim, we are in sorry shape. Again the victim was never allowed the luxury of even choosing life inprisonment for himself.
Have a good night everyone.
387. Seguine - Dec. 8, 1998 - 5:38 PM PT
Resonance,
"Exodus 22:18. Part of the Christian tradition. The right is mitigated."
That passage refers to the sacrifice of animals. It is followed by one prohibiting the "seething" of a calf in its mother's milk. I would offer instead, "Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord", but I'm not sure it's an OT reference.
It did occur to me that an anti-CP stance could possibly be constructed out of a piece of rabbinic commentary occasionally reproduced on posters. I think it's supposed to come from the Talmud: "He who saves a single life, it is as though he has saved the whole world."
I can devise only two interpretations of this.
1) Every person literally carries with him the seeds of a "whole world" of human beings. (Reproduction.)
2) Life is not quantifiable: the value of every single human life is equivalent to the value of all human lives.
If one accepts interpretation #1, CP is wrong because it eliminates the "whole world" of lives that might otherwise issue from a condemned person.
If one accepts interpretation #2, then executing a single person is equivalent to executing everyone on earth.
388. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 8, 1998 - 5:41 PM PT
Message #355
"With all your pragmatism, you can't see any necessity to kill a convict."
You keep mistaking my lack of principles for pragmatism.
"You recognize that the condemned man has a right to life..."
No I do not. According to me, once convicted for a capital crime, a person has forfeited his humanity. He has no rights at all. The state can do with him as it pleases. Kill him. Enslave him. Make zoo feed out of him. My own preference is one of two: throw the convict out of an airplane from 15,000 feet into the ocean (the Calgal method); or hurl him against a cliff with a catapult (the Jenerator method).
389. resonance - Dec. 8, 1998 - 5:42 PM PT
"Look, when you say that a person has a
capability or a tendency for a crime, that's just a
statement about his future actions based on
evidence of past behaviour."
No, it's a statement that the criminal possesses a mindset which makes future crimes likely. There's a large difference there. Your interpretation refuses to grant that criminals a priori are more likely to commit crimes than law-abiding citizens.There is a reason that they are more likely -- because their minds see less reasons, moral or practical, to *not* commit crimes.
"This is meaningless. "Tendency" or "capability"
is the statistical likelihood of recidivism that
happens to be indeterminate in the present."
No, the latter flows from the former. They aren't the same thing, though.
"You can't punish someone for something that
hasn't happened yet -- it's impossible to do so."
But you are, with "negative reinforcement"."
No, I'm not, PE. I'm changing the likelihood someone will commit another crime. It's the current state that gets corrected, so that the future state will not have to be.
390. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 8, 1998 - 5:42 PM PT
Raskolnikov: That equation hasn't anything to do with justice. It's something I might fancy.
391. arkymalarky - Dec. 8, 1998 - 5:43 PM PT
As far as "The Lottery" goes, I haven't read the story in a long time, but I never felt like it really had a clear point, or at least not one worth making. The characters aren't developed enough for the reader to make any sense of why the stoning is done, imo. The main effect is the shock in the contrast between the seemingly civilized citizens and their uncivilized act. It always reminded me of a Twilight Zone episode.
392. resonance - Dec. 8, 1998 - 5:44 PM PT
You can argue and argue and argue that it's the future crimes which are punished, but the future crimes will not occur without the tendency to commit them. And the tendency is what gets addressed. To heal, someone you don't treat the symptoms, you treat the disease. To correct a software bug, you don't turn the computer off every time it comes up, you patch the flawed code. Yes?
" What rationale? I'm not proposing a rationale.
I'm reducing YOUR spurious rationales to what
they actually are -- punishment of future actions."
The hell you aren't proposing a rationale, PE. You're saying that punishment is punishment is retribution, and therefore it's all right to execute a murderer via the death penalty.
"Of course, that's
ridiculous, but that's what "negative
reinforcement" or "rehabilitation" amounts to --
making sure that the criminal doesn't commit
crimes in the future."
By reducing a known tendency to commit them.
393. thomasd - Dec. 8, 1998 - 5:45 PM PT
As a practical matter, our society demands that certain offenders pay for their crimes with their lives. Until this attitude changes, we'll continue to be saddled with various forms of the death penalty.
Ok, this thread can be ended now.
394. CalGal - Dec. 8, 1998 - 5:45 PM PT
Res,
"And the townfolk never seemed bloodthirsty."
Well, yes. I saw that. Which was my point. They weren't bloodthirsty. That is because they really didn't think about what they were doing at all. Whereas right now, no one is blindly accepting the death penalty as some meaningless ritual. Much passion both ways. So what is the connection with The Lottery? There is no similarity between the mentality of people who are for the death penalty and the people in The Lottery.
If you are saying, as Christin's interpretation seems to, that support for the death penalty is based on the secure conviction that "it will never happen to me"....shrug. Not that I can see. Nor do I see the support here reflecting a reluctance to kill people but figuring hey, that's the price we pay for safety.
But if that's what you meant, fine. If you have some other interpretation that, once explained to me, would reflect your brilliance in all its glory, do tell.
395. resonance - Dec. 8, 1998 - 5:47 PM PT
""Exodus 22:18. Part of the Christian tradition.
The right is mitigated."
That passage refers to the sacrifice of animals."
?????????????????
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live? It's about animals? What kind of animal is a 'witch'?
396. Jenerator - Dec. 8, 1998 - 5:47 PM PT
Or, pull every hair out of his 100 pound weakling body - one at a time, bury him in the sand up to his neck, pour honey all over him, and you've got fire ant food!(PseudoErasmus method)
397. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 8, 1998 - 5:50 PM PT
resonance (Message #389)
"No, it's a statement that the criminal possesses a mindset which makes future crimes likely. There's a large difference there."
Even those not convicted of crime can have this "mindset". What about those who are acquitted on some technicality? Do they lack this "mindset"? Of course not.
"Your interpretation refuses to grant that criminals a priori are more likely to commit crimes than law-abiding citizens."
Of course my interpretation grants that. I'm saying that imprisonment effectively punishes someone on account of that likelihood. Such a punishment has got nothing to do with the crime he's already committed.
398. resonance - Dec. 8, 1998 - 5:50 PM PT
Thought you had to leave, twice now.
And anyone who can argue that a specific case -- Richard Speck -- is indicative of even a sizable minority of what life imprisonment is like is not to be listened to.
399. Seguine - Dec. 8, 1998 - 5:51 PM PT
"We're not willing to torture criminals but we are willing to kill them. This to me shows a devaluation of human life that killing is an
acceptable choice."
Well, to me it shows that we believe life is not as important as the quality of life. Torture reduces the quality of a life to a point that death is preferable. So, this society cuts to the chase.
Personally, I think that in spite of people's claims to belief in the sanctity of life, what most people really believe in is not the sanctity of life per se, but the sanctity of some quality of life that makes it worth living. Therefore, most people SHOULD be able to accept PE's continuum argument. But until the religious underpinnings of life's sanctity are unmoored, that can't honestly happen.
400. Raskolnikov - Dec. 8, 1998 - 5:53 PM PT
Pseudo: I tailor my arguments to my audience.