NationStates Jolt Archive

As a citizen of a country that does not have the death penalty, I am interested in the moral and practical justifications for this institution.

First of all, practically speaking ... is it effective? Does is serve as a deterrent to criminals? Is it successful in reducing crime?

Second of all, morally speaking ... how does the state justify a monopoly on legal killing? To what extent are we willing to tolerate the risk of innocent people being put to death for a crime they did not commit?

Thirdly, does it have any other benefits or drawbacks? Does it increase or decrease faith in the justice system?

Fire away, and feel free to address any issues I have not mentioned.

As a citizen of a country that does not have the death penalty, I am interested in the moral and practical justifications for this institution.

First of all, practically speaking ... is it effective? Does is serve as a deterrent to criminals? Is it successful in reducing crime?

Second of all, morally speaking ... how does the state justify a monopoly on legal killing? To what extent are we willing to tolerate the risk of innocent people being put to death for a crime they did not commit?

Thirdly, does it have any other benefits or drawbacks? Does it increase or decrease faith in the justice system?

Fire away, and feel free to address any issues I have not mentioned.


Deterrent/Crime Reduction: Let's see. Who's more likely to commit murder? A guy who'll get out of prison in 20 years on parole, or a guy who will never see the light of day again because he's dead? Who's more likely to be the repeat offender?

Morals: Moals are subjective in the first place.

Faith in Justice: For me, I would feel safer knowing the rapists are dead.

As a citizen of a country that does not have the death penalty, I am interested in the moral and practical justifications for this institution.

First of all, practically speaking ... is it effective? Does is serve as a deterrent to criminals? Is it successful in reducing crime?

Second of all, morally speaking ... how does the state justify a monopoly on legal killing? To what extent are we willing to tolerate the risk of innocent people being put to death for a crime they did not commit?

Thirdly, does it have any other benefits or drawbacks? Does it increase or decrease faith in the justice system?

Fire away, and feel free to address any issues I have not mentioned.

1. I've always heard that there is no added deterrent with the death penalty. You'd think that life in jail would be enough deterrent.

2. Good question.

3. The legal costs of executing somebody in the US is actually greater than holding them in prison for life.


As you might have guessed, I'm against the death penalty. I think that life sentences do well as punishment. I don't think that killing people for vengence or killing at all unless it's in self defense or defense of others is right. I especially don't appreciate a system that occasionally executes innocent people.

This again?

The death penalty should be reserved only for truly hideous crimes. I'm talking mass & serial rape/murderers, and crimes against humanity type stuff. It is not an effective deterrant, and no matter what your criminal justice system is, it can and does make mistakes.

I so wanna see Saddam get a short drop and a sudden stop.

Killing is wrong unless in direct defense of life. Therefore the death penalty is wrong.

In addition lets examine the 3 aspects of criminal justice with respect to the DP:

Deterrence: While an executed murderer is not going to repeat, murderers have the lowest recidivism rate upon release. In addition the brutalization theory suggests that the DP is interperted as a tacit support of murder. Also, the idea that one would be willing to do something if he would get life but not if he would get death seems absurd to me.

Rehabilitation: The DP doesn't allow for rehabilitation. Life potentially does.

Restitution (to victims and society): May provide feelings of vengence in victim's family however revenge =! restitution. Takes ages to provide closuer due to the lengthy appeals process. Doesn't bring victim back. Person can't help society when dead, but can potentially help while alive, even if it's only by doing something from inside the walls of a prison.

Use of the death penalty is an admission of failure. It shows that we can think of nothing better to do with the person than to destroy them.
Of course, sometimes failure is inescapable.

I have no problem with the death penalty in theory. I look at it logically. If you ran a robot farm* where robots occaisionally malfunctioned and harmed other robots, what would you do?
Would you punish the robot? Maybe whip it a bit?
No.
Most likely, you'd try to have it repaired.
What would you do if the robot was beyond your ability to have repaired?
Would you store it in an attic or barn until it rusted away?
What about when you had 100 of them in your barn? Or 1000, or 10,000, or 100,000, etc.?
Most likely, you'd scrap the robot if it wasn't able to be repaired.

Same with people. When they malfunction, they should be rehabilitated. If they cannot be rehabilitated, then we should scrap them.

I support it. Why should we be providing free food, and facilities to someone who raped/killed someones daughter/son?

First of all, practically speaking ... is it effective? Does is serve as a deterrent to criminals? Is it successful in reducing crime?All signs point to no.

We have done comparative studies looking at countries with capital punishment and those that do not; perhaps more interestingly, we have compared crime rates in U.S. States that use it, and those that do not; and we have studied States that make the transition from using it to not using it, and vice versa.

Most of the time, the crime rate actually seems to drop somewhat without the death penalty. Never has a scientific study ever suggested that the death penalty acts as a general deterrent. Nor is it any more effective at specific deterrence than a well-implemented life-without-parole option.

Second of all, morally speaking ... how does the state justify a monopoly on legal killing?By definition, the state has a monopoly on legal killing. To what extent are we willing to tolerate the risk of innocent people being put to death for a crime they did not commit?Personally, I think we should hardly tolerate this at all.

I have no profound "moral" argument against the death penalty. I think that the moral justifications for capital punishment are, if not necessarily correct, at least very reasonable.

However, I do think that the costs exceed the benefits. There are essentially three costs, in the U.S. system:

1) The cost of killing innocent people.
2) The cost of safeguards against killing innocent people, such as an extensive appeals process.
3) The fact that our legal system still includes an "ability to pay" bias, so that the harshest punishments are used disproportionately against poor and minority defendants. This is a "cost" to the extent that it exacerbates existing class and race-related social problems.

Deterrence: Uncertain. Research does not establish that the death penalty is a form of punishment that deter crime more than life imprisonment.

Morally speaking and other drawbacks: The consequences of an incorrect verdict is that an innocent person is killed. This is unacceptable, and since the criminal justice system is in no way a perfect system, mistakes will happen. As such, the risks outweigh any potential benefits that capital punishment might bring to the table today.

As a citizen of a country that does not have the death penalty, I am interested in the moral and practical justifications for this institution.

First of all, practically speaking ... is it effective? Does is serve as a deterrent to criminals? Is it successful in reducing crime?
It puts fear into people who think about commiting a crime deserving the DP. Religiously speaking, it is NOT effective, because you could send that person to hell-you're killing when he's a really bad person. I guess it does reduce crime, but if they know they won't get caught... Also, people can get set-up to be killed that way. Put all evidence against someone you want killed, and they die. It actually commits the crime it tries to prevent!

Second of all, morally speaking ... how does the state justify a monopoly on legal killing? To what extent are we willing to tolerate the risk of innocent people being put to death for a crime they did not commit?
I do not tolerate killing unless it prevents people from going to hell (more killing kinda).

Thirdly, does it have any other benefits or drawbacks? Does it increase or decrease faith in the justice system?
Decreases faith for me. What about all the people they discovered innocent after they killed them? That's like killing someone because they want to die and they are in pain, and then they find a cure for the desease a month later.

Fire away, and feel free to address any issues I have not mentioned.
-If they don't have room or money for jail, get the prisnors to farm their own food as comunity service. Get them to make money for the jail to build onto it and make more prisons. If they deserve the death penalty, just imprisin them for life. If something happens, MAYBE they can be released early.
DEATH PENALTY IS DUMB

As a citizen of a country that does not have the death penalty, I am interested in the moral and practical justifications for this institution.

First of all, practically speaking ... is it effective? Does is serve as a deterrent to criminals? Is it successful in reducing crime?

Second of all, morally speaking ... how does the state justify a monopoly on legal killing? To what extent are we willing to tolerate the risk of innocent people being put to death for a crime they did not commit?

Thirdly, does it have any other benefits or drawbacks? Does it increase or decrease faith in the justice system?

Fire away, and feel free to address any issues I have not mentioned.

(1) No
(2) The state cannot justify it.
(3) Pretty hard for someone to be redeemed and rehabilitated once it's been applied.

Deterrent/Crime Reduction: Let's see. Who's more likely to commit murder? A guy who'll get out of prison in 20 years on parole, or a guy who will never see the light of day again because he's dead? Who's more likely to be the repeat offender?

Morals: Moals are subjective in the first place.

Faith in Justice: For me, I would feel safer knowing the rapists are dead.

(1) Who is more likely to commit murder? the rapist who knows if his victim can identify him, he is going to go to prison, or the rapist who knows if his victim can identify him, he is going to die...

(2) No they are not. Else rape would be fine. Which is assuredly is not.

(3) Knowing that the state has the power of life or death over me does not, oddly, increase my faith that the world is just...

Deterrent/Crime Reduction: Let's see. Who's more likely to commit murder? A guy who'll get out of prison in 20 years on parole, or a guy who will never see the light of day again because he's dead?The harsher the punishment, the greater the motive to get rid of potential witnesses and cover your tracks.

The single best reason for having capital punishment is that the people want it. I may have severe doubts about the efficacy of the thing, and would like it to be severely restricted ( so that it becomes indeed very unusual ), but as long as the majority of the people wants it, it should be there, and be visible.

Vox populi, vox dei. The essence of Democracy

The single best reason for having capital punishment is that the people want it. I may have severe doubts about the efficacy of the thing, and would like it to be severely restricted ( so that it becomes indeed very unusual ), but as long as the majority of the people wants it, it should be there, and be visible.

Vox populi, vox dei. The essence of Democracy

Depends whether you live in a representative democracy or not. If you lived in a state where all decisions were made by the mass of the population, via some sort of constant plebiscite system, fine (although a miracle of democracy, i'd be leaving the country that applied that system because a lot of the things that the mass of the public want, i don't want, simply because on many of the issues i've studied the thing in hand and realise the public have been misinformed or brainwashed, and because on other things, i'm just knowingly perverse and anti popular opinion). Otherwise, the vox populi, vox dei thing holds little sense - the people want a lot of thing. They elect representatives whose job it is to sift through what is applicable/worth doing or not.

I don't believe it deters would be murderers. I also don't believe we have the right to take anyone's life.

Depends whether you live in a representative democracy or not. If you lived in a state where all decisions were made by the mass of the population, via some sort of constant plebiscite system, fine (although a miracle of democracy, i'd be leaving the country that applied that system because a lot of the things that the mass of the public want, i don't want, simply because on many of the issues i've studied the thing in hand and realise the public have been misinformed or brainwashed, and because on other things, i'm just knowingly perverse and anti popular opinion). Otherwise, the vox populi, vox dei thing holds little sense - the people want a lot of thing. They elect representatives whose job it is to sift through what is applicable/worth doing or not.

As an old SDLP supporter, I'm 100% in favour of Democracy in either its direct or in its representative form. Any other form of government is quite simply illegitimate. ( check the EDHR - basically, any other form of Government is so proscripted that it holds no powers whatsoever. )

Meanwhile, I consider it the job of the representatives of the People to limit themselves to carrying out their platforms, and definetely not to start having ideas of their own.

As a citizen of a country that does not have the death penalty, I am interested in the moral and practical justifications for this institution.

First of all, practically speaking ... is it effective? Does is serve as a deterrent to criminals? Is it successful in reducing crime?

Second of all, morally speaking ... how does the state justify a monopoly on legal killing? To what extent are we willing to tolerate the risk of innocent people being put to death for a crime they did not commit?

Thirdly, does it have any other benefits or drawbacks? Does it increase or decrease faith in the justice system?

Fire away, and feel free to address any issues I have not mentioned.
It is wrong to kill, whether it be a murderer in the street or the State in the night. Two wrongs never make a right, and telling people that it is 'illegal to murder, except when we do it' is the height of hypocracy.

It serves no purpose other than satisfy the cold blooded revenge instincts of those too uncivilised to rise above them.

There are 5 Men who live in a state/country with the death penalty and each kill 5 people in small town. Those 5 people who are killed have 30 relatives each in that same state/country. Men gets sentenced to life in prison. Because of taxes, those 150 relatives must pay for the criminals that murdered their family members for the rest of said criminals life.

I think it is justified.

There are 5 Men who live in a state/country with the death penalty and each kill 5 people in small town. Those 5 people who are killed have 30 relatives each in that same state/country. Men gets sentenced to life in prison. Because of taxes, those 150 relatives must pay for the criminals that murdered their family members for the rest of said criminals life.

I think it is justified.
Alternative: Men get sentenced to death. There are now 300 relatives, all of whom are affected, and all of whom have to pay the higher cost of executing them.

I think it is unjustified.

There are 5 Men who live in a state/country with the death penalty and each kill 5 people in small town. Those 5 people who are killed have 30 relatives each in that same state/country. Men gets sentenced to life in prison. Because of taxes, those 150 relatives must pay for the criminals that murdered their family members for the rest of said criminals life.

I think it is justified.

Again with the tax burden argument. Hehheh this one just don't make sense to me okay here we go again.

We pay taxes, I don't know how you do it where you are but here in the UK, we pay based on how much we earn, yep a percentage of our wages goes right to the goverment as taxes. The amount that we pay changes only with an increase in wages earnt or when the goverment calls a new budget.

We have no control on what the goverment choose to spend their tax revenue on. Nor are we charged more when something strange or differant happens. If we doubled the amount of prisioners in prision, we would not pay more tax than we already do. So please somebody, anybody explain to me this "why should I pay taxes for prisioners" rhetoric if makes no sense at all.

Sorry I got side tracked on tio the main bit huh!

For the record I am against the death sentance and on the grrounds that moraly we have not the right to kill. However having said that I would like to ask why?

Why is it that moraly speaking we deem it wrong for one human to take the life of another, except in self defense?
Animals use violence in everyday life, when compeating for a mate, when chassing off others from their terotairy, to eat, and some animals seemingly just for the hell of it.

We too are a bloody violent breed, and seemingly are willing to use violence on each other as well as any other animal. Indeed our reasons for violence are not as noble as in the animal kingdoom, not for protecting our young, nor even to eat but more base ideals like supporting a differant football team, or listening to a differant type of music.

It seems pretty clear to me that this moral thing is not done out of any sense of civilisation, we not that civerlised.

So why is it considered moraly wrong to take the life of a member of our own species, when we can kill any other speices with impunity?

Morals: Moals are subjective in the first place.

Incorrect. You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

Anyway, all legitimate crimes are morally equivalent to murder, and so they should all be punished the same way.

And execution is a perfectly legitimate punishment for murderers.

Here's why:

By killing a human being, an individual renounces his humanity. Since he is no longer human, he no longer possesses rights, which means you can do whatever you want to him--torture him, kill him, enslave him, whatever.

The ultimate goal should be punishment, period. Not rehabilitation, not deterrence, simply punishment.

It is wrong to kill,

Nope.

Killing, in the abstract, is neither wrong nor right. You are dropping context here--a fallacy first identified by the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

A PARTICULAR INSTANCE of killing can be either moral or immoral, but killing in the abstract, categorically, has no moral value one way or the other.

As a citizen of a country that does not have the death penalty, I am interested in the moral and practical justifications for this institution.

First of all, practically speaking ... is it effective? Does is serve as a deterrent to criminals? Is it successful in reducing crime?

Second of all, morally speaking ... how does the state justify a monopoly on legal killing? To what extent are we willing to tolerate the risk of innocent people being put to death for a crime they did not commit?

Thirdly, does it have any other benefits or drawbacks? Does it increase or decrease faith in the justice system?

Fire away, and feel free to address any issues I have not mentioned.

In theory, I believe there are situations in which it would be appropriate to execute a human being. I do not believe this would be a particularly effective force in detering future crimes, nor do I think it would significantly increase or decrease faith in the justice system in and of itself.

In practice, there is no existing government or human society that I would trust to make 100% accurate determinations about when and how to execute human beings. I believe only a 100% accuracy rate would be acceptable. Therefore, I cannot support the practice of the death penalty.

We have no right to judge a persons right to life, that is for God to decide. As for deterring criminals, simply lock em up in an underwater prison, send un-manned subs with supplies, and lock the door forever. Exile is also an effective form of punishment.

Nope.

Killing, in the abstract, is neither wrong nor right. You are dropping context here--a fallacy first identified by the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

A PARTICULAR INSTANCE of killing can be either moral or immoral, but killing in the abstract, categorically, has no moral value one way or the other.
Thou shalt not kill is pretty clear to me. It is wrong for Chrisitans to kill.

Incorrect. You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

Anyway, all legitimate crimes are morally equivalent to murder, and so they should all be punished the same way.

And execution is a perfectly legitimate punishment for murderers.

Here's why:

By killing a human being, an individual renounces his humanity. Since he is no longer human, he no longer possesses rights, which means you can do whatever you want to him--torture him, kill him, enslave him, whatever.

The ultimate goal should be punishment, period. Not rehabilitation, not deterrence, simply punishment.


Yeah I would call that opinion not fact. Please prove to me that by killing another human said human renounces his/her humanity. This type of thinking seems less than human to me!

Incorrect. You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

Anyway, all legitimate crimes are morally equivalent to murder, and so they should all be punished the same way.

And execution is a perfectly legitimate punishment for murderers.

Here's why:

By killing a human being, an individual renounces his humanity. Since he is no longer human, he no longer possesses rights, which means you can do whatever you want to him--torture him, kill him, enslave him, whatever.

The ultimate goal should be punishment, period. Not rehabilitation, not deterrence, simply punishment.
Does he really reject humanity? Is it safe to say then, that abortion doctors are not human, and can be killed as they are preventing life, so therefore rejecting it? What about the man who orders an innocent man to dies? Is he now a killer to? Ayn Rand was an immoral monster, read the works of His Holiness the late Pope John Paul II instead.

Yeah I would call that opinion not fact. Please prove to me that by killing another human said human renounces his/her humanity. This type of thinking seems less than human to me!
Its objective Soviet Russian thinking.

Thou shalt not kill is pretty clear to me. It is wrong for Chrisitans to kill.

Judeo-Christian moral teachings are incorrect.

Does he really reject humanity? Is it safe to say then, that abortion doctors are not human, and can be killed as they are preventing life, so therefore rejecting it? What about the man who orders an innocent man to dies? Is he now a killer to? Ayn Rand was an immoral monster, read the works of His Holiness the late Pope John Paul II instead.

What about us who are not Christians? Such as myself? (I'm an athiest.)

[QUOTE=Tangled Up In Blue]
By killing a human being, an individual renounces his humanity. Since he is no longer human, he no longer possesses rights, which means you can do whatever you want to him--torture him, kill him, enslave him, whatever.

[QUOTE]

That is saying man has rights to begin with, stop reading John Locke, and read Machiavelli. He makes alot more sense.

Judeo-Christian moral teachings are incorrect.
So you are saying it is okay to kill, fornicate, lust, ect...

Yeah I would call that opinion not fact. Please prove to me that by killing another human said human renounces his/her humanity.

Man is a creature that must act in its own rational self-interest to survive.

The use of violence by one rational creature against another is an irrational way of settling disputes--sure, maybe you can get away with it, but it doesn't settle the question of principle.

Thus, the use of violence constitutes a renunciation of one's nature as a rational being.

Executing violent offenders does NOT constitute the use of violence by one rational creature against another, because the target has already demonstrated his irrationality by his violent act. So it is the use of violence by a rational creature against an irrational creature.

So you are saying it is okay to kill, fornicate, lust, ect...

No. He is saying Judeo-Christian teachings are incorrect.

And I agree with him.

What about us who are not Christians? Such as myself? (I'm an athiest.)
Well, these are basic morals, so they still apply.

Does he really reject humanity? Is it safe to say then, that abortion doctors are not human, and can be killed as they are preventing life, so therefore rejecting it?
Nope.

Preventing something from happening is not equal to destroying it once it has already happened.

If I decide not to have sex, I am "preventing life" just as much as the abortion doctor. However, like the abortion doctor, I am not destroying existing life--just preventing potential life from coming into being.

What about the man who orders an innocent man to dies? Is he now a killer to?
Certainly.

Ayn Rand was an immoral monster
I defy you to refute a single word she ever said or wrote.

Well, these are basic morals, so they still apply.

Define basic morals.

So you are saying it is okay to kill, fornicate, lust, ect...

As I said earlier, NONE of those are categorically moral or immoral, in the abstract.

PARTICULAR INSTANCES of those acts may be moral or not, however.

You're context-dropping.

No. He is saying Judeo-Christian teachings are incorrect.

And I agree with him.
You can't just say a belief system is wrong if you wont address the individual teachings.

Off-topic:

Tangled Up In Blue, what about that terrorist attack RP we were planning? The one where you assasinate my nation's leader?

Well, there IS one objectively correct morality, but the Judeo-Christian idea of what it is is patently incorrect.

You can't just say a belief system is wrong if you wont address the individual teachings.

Why can't I?

Well, there IS one objectively correct morality, but the Judeo-Christian idea of what it is is patently incorrect.

Well... what is it then?

(Now, I'm not saying I find it a good thing to kill, etc. It's just that even though I follow it, there's really not much to back it up.)

Off-topic:

Tangled Up In Blue, what about that terrorist attack RP we were planning? The one where you assasinate my nation's leader?

I've been doing the IC planning and buildup to it in installments, dunno if you found the thread or not.

Anyway, I've been away from my computer for a few days; I should have the next installment done sometime today. It may be a little bit before the attack actually occurs, though.

Define basic morals.
Morals should be what guides a decision, normally they are the choice that picks greater good over the individual, and upholds stability.

Well... what is it then?

Any act that is in your own RATIONAL self-interest is moral.

I've been doing the IC planning and buildup to it in installments, dunno if you found the thread or not.

Anyway, I've been away from my computer for a few days; I should have the next installment done sometime today. It may be a little bit before the attack actually occurs, though.

OK, I'll wait.

Any act that is in your own RATIONAL self-interest is moral.

Good definition.

Why can't I?
Then it turns into, I right ur wrong cuz I smarter tehn you, contest.
Its illogical, and if you can't then your just rebelling against the norm to be individual with no thought to back it up.

Then it turns into, I right ur wrong cuz I smarter tehn you, contest.
Its illogical, and if you can't then your just rebelling against the norm to be individual with no thought to back it up.

Wait. It's "the norm" to believe in something with no proof whatsoever?

Wait. It's "the norm" to believe in something with no proof whatsoever?
it is the most common (especally among policy makers) yes.

it is the most common (especally among policy makers) yes.

Well then the norm is pretty illogical.

Just because everyone's doing it doesn't make it good. If everyone was jumping off the cliff, would that make it a good idea?

Man is a creature that must act in its own rational self-interest to survive.

The use of violence by one rational creature against another is an irrational way of settling disputes--sure, maybe you can get away with it, but it doesn't settle the question of principle.

Thus, the use of violence constitutes a renunciation of one's nature as a rational being.

Executing violent offenders does NOT constitute the use of violence by one rational creature against another, because the target has already demonstrated his irrationality by his violent act. So it is the use of violence by a rational creature against an irrational creature.

Ahh so then you feel man to be a rational creature? If man was rational then why do we have irrational belifes all around us, why is it we cannot seem to agree even on the smallest things. If mankind was rational why war, poverty, pedophelia. It seems rational to me to scrap third world dept, yet we have not even though we do have it in our power. Add to that mankinds history of violence through out it's history and we see that violence has always been an answer to mans problems with each other. Far from violence being irrational it seems to me to be the norm.

This argument based upon mankinds rationality is a non starter. Please feel free to try again, or another tact or just say sorry you're right it is my personal opinion.

Well then the norm is pretty illogical.

Just because everyone's doing it doesn't make it good. If everyone was jumping off the cliff, would that make it a good idea?
yes but even if you choose to belive that the god part is wrong the moral code that comes with it is good.

yes but even if you choose to belive that the god part is wrong the moral code that comes with it is good.

For the most peart... yes, actually.

For the most peart... yes, actually.
that is all I ask.

Well. If we did it enough we could solve the prison overcrowding problem...
But there is no proof, that I've seen and trusted, has shown that capital punishment is a deterent.

Well then the norm is pretty illogical.

Just because everyone's doing it doesn't make it good. If everyone was jumping off the cliff, would that make it a good idea?


Man we all do it , yep even you. You are normal I take it?!

All signs point to no.

We have done comparative studies looking at countries with capital punishment and those that do not; perhaps more interestingly, we have compared crime rates in U.S. States that use it, and those that do not; and we have studied States that make the transition from using it to not using it, and vice versa.

Most of the time, the crime rate actually seems to drop somewhat without the death penalty. Never has a scientific study ever suggested that the death penalty acts as a general deterrent. Nor is it any more effective at specific deterrence than a well-implemented life-without-parole option.



Do you have any citations or links for these studies? I would love to have access to them.

Man we all do it , yep even you. You are normal I take it?!

You can't really define, "normal" people as all people are diferent.

I so wanna see Saddam get a short drop and a sudden stop.
Yeah, but then they'd call him a matyr and nobody wants that. People would try to copy him.

By killing a human being, an individual renounces his humanity.


Speaking of dropping context ....

By killing a human being, an individual renounces his humanity. Since he is no longer human, he no longer possesses rights, which means you can do whatever you want to him--torture him, kill him, enslave him, whatever.

So if a woman kills someone who is trying to rape her, then she is no longer human? Stupid, stupid, stupid.

As a citizen of a country that does not have the death penalty, I am interested in the moral and practical justifications for this institution.

First of all, practically speaking ... is it effective? Does is serve as a deterrent to criminals? Is it successful in reducing crime?

Second of all, morally speaking ... how does the state justify a monopoly on legal killing? To what extent are we willing to tolerate the risk of innocent people being put to death for a crime they did not commit?

Thirdly, does it have any other benefits or drawbacks? Does it increase or decrease faith in the justice system?

Fire away, and feel free to address any issues I have not mentioned.


1. Yes, it is effective but I got other suggestion. IMO it would be better if they were sent into very high security forced labor camps for the rest of their lives. It is more practical and they suffer too.

2. A honest man will never get involved into criminal activities and will avoid any contacts with criminals.

3. Of course death sentence will increase faith in justice system. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. Sounds fair enough to me.

Judeo-Christian moral teachings are incorrect.

In your view.

1. Yes, it is effective but I got other suggestion. IMO it would be better if they were sent into very high security forced labor camps for the rest of their lives. It is more practical and they suffer too.

2. A honest man will never get involved into criminal activities and will avoid any contacts with criminals.

3. Of course death sentence will increase faith in justice system. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. Sounds fair enough to me.

Hey do you actualy belive number 2 to be true, really? I can almost garentee that everybody, yep that is everybody would indulge in criminal activity if the rewards where great enough and the risk was small.

Have you every caught a bus or train and not paid the fare? Have you been fined and not paid it, do you(if you live in the UK) have a TV license? Have you every gambled, fornacated, pissed in a public place. If you are a Chritian and live in the UK, have you as is still required by law practiced archery in the church grounds after the service? What no you criminal. Ever smoked dope? Ever not smoked it but passed it onto somebody else? Have you ever handled fake mnoney, crossed the road before the greenman? I could go on and on and on.....

Man braking the law is so easy, it will be harder to find a person who has not engaged in some crime, than to count the criminals.

Man is a creature that must act in its own rational self-interest to survive.

The use of violence by one rational creature against another is an irrational way of settling disputes--sure, maybe you can get away with it, but it doesn't settle the question of principle.

Thus, the use of violence constitutes a renunciation of one's nature as a rational being.

Executing violent offenders does NOT constitute the use of violence by one rational creature against another, because the target has already demonstrated his irrationality by his violent act. So it is the use of violence by a rational creature against an irrational creature.

Circular logic. By defining humans as rational creatures, you then claim that irrational acts deprive them of their humanity. Firstly, that definition of humanity does not accord with the reality that for much of our history, humans have survived based on the instincts of self-preservation and perpetuation of species/protection of young. Further, there is much evidence to suggest that protection of young is actually the stronger of the two instincts ... parents will die to protect their young, and so forth (the selfish gener prevails). As such, I would suggest that survival of a human is dependent on instinct, and is even subordinate to the greater natural imperative of survival of the species.

Secondly, that raises the interesting question of whether any irrational act deprives someone of their humanity, and therefore results in justifiably killing them. Do you propose putting to death anyone who acts irrationally?

Thirdly, there is a gap on your logic. Even assuming that you are correct that an irrational act deprives someone of their humanity, this does not justify killing them unless that is in the rational self-interest of the person doing the killing. Many on this thread have suggested that the costs of capital punishment ouweigh the benefits, and therefore it might not be in a person's rational self-interest to kill someone simply because they are a killer. It might be more rational to lock them away for the rest of eternity.

Fourth, it also raises the question of whether someone could kill someone merely because it is their rational self-interest even if that person has not acted irrationally. For example, it might be in my rational self-interest to kill off my closest business competitor, if I knew I could get away with it.

But there is no proof, that I've seen and trusted, has shown that capital punishment is a deterent.

Why does that matter?

The idea is to punish them. Deterrence and rehabilitation are only of secondary importance, if at all.

Ahh so then you feel man to be a rational creature? If man was rational then why do we have irrational belifes all around us, why is it we cannot seem to agree even on the smallest things.
Because they are volitionally REJECTING their nature--which is itself an irrational act.

All evil stems from an individual's volitional rejection of his fundamental nature of his rational nature.

So if a woman kills someone who is trying to rape her, then she is no longer human? Stupid, stupid, stupid.

No.

Don't be so shallow.

Committing violence against a human causes one to reject his humanity. Thus, since the one who commits violence is no longer human, committing violence against HIM does not cause the rape victim to reject her humanity, because what she is committing violence against is not human.

No.

Don't be so shallow.

Committing violence against a human causes one to reject his humanity. Thus, since the one who commits violence is no longer human, committing violence against HIM does not cause the rape victim to reject her humanity, because what she is committing violence against is not human.

What happens to the executioner who mistakenly executes someone who was innocent of the crime of which they were convicted. Having killed a fellow rational being (albeit under the impression that they were irrational), does this deprive them of their humanity.

Because they are volitionally REJECTING their nature--which is itself an irrational act.

All evil stems from an individual's volitional rejection of his fundamental nature of his rational nature.

Only if you think that rationality is fundamental to human nature.

Incorrect. You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

Anyway, all legitimate crimes are morally equivalent to murder, and so they should all be punished the same way.

And execution is a perfectly legitimate punishment for murderers.

Here's why:

By killing a human being, an individual renounces his humanity. Since he is no longer human, he no longer possesses rights, which means you can do whatever you want to him--torture him, kill him, enslave him, whatever.

The ultimate goal should be punishment, period. Not rehabilitation, not deterrence, simply punishment.
Simple: I disagree with practically everything you've said here.

Why does that matter?

The idea is to punish them. Deterrence and rehabilitation are only of secondary importance, if at all.
Luckily, that is not the case for most of the western worlds criminal justice systems.

Simple: I disagree with practically everything you've said here.


Luckily, that is not the case for most of the western worlds criminal justice systems.

1st: Not all crimes need the death penalty.

2nd: The idea IS to punish them. Come on, look at our current system. It's PATHETIC. "Oh, you murdered someone and you behaved good. LET'S LET YOU OUT!"

1st: Not all crimes need the death penalty.

2nd: The idea IS to punish them. Come on, look at our current system. It's PATHETIC. "Oh, you murdered someone and you behaved good. LET'S LET YOU OUT!"

But surely punishment must serve a greater purpose? It must either convince the person that what they have done was wrong so that they will never do it again (i.e. teach them a lesson, i.e. contribute to rehabilitation of that individual), convince other people not to do the same thing (i.e. crime prevention/deterrence), or contribute to a greater sense that justice is being done (i.e. increase faith in the justice system, or possibly just achieve retribution?).

Punishment in and of itself does nothing, as far as I can tell.

1st: Not all crimes need the death penalty.
No crime need the death penalty.

2nd: The idea IS to punish them. Come on, look at our current system. It's PATHETIC. "Oh, you murdered someone and you behaved good. LET'S LET YOU OUT!"
It is, as Evil Cantadia is talking about, punishments for a reason. Deterrence mostly in the west, with a dash of rehabilitation (not too much). One does not punish solely for the sake of punishing.

No crime need the death penalty.

It is, as Evil Cantadia is talking about, punishments for a reason. Deterrence mostly in the west, with a dash of rehabilitation (not too much). One does not punish solely for the sake of punishing.

1st: Depends on your definition of "need". We'll live if he's not dead, yes, but to have justice done? For murder, rape, and other stuff like that, it must be done.

2nd: Yes, deters a lot, getting out on parole. :rolleyes:

Does a society really benefit from the death penalty? Do state-sanctioned executions provide a safer living for the many citizens inside the nation state? Or is it that through these kind of methods we devalue life in the same way the killers and rapists have done? We therewith tell the children that murder is wrong, except in the name of punishment...

Furthermore, the possibility (though slimming through better evidence building and possible dna-testing) that even one single innocent person is put to death by the state in name of it´s people is enough to warrant the end of the death-penalty as punishment imho.

Does a society really benefit from the death penalty? Do state-sanctioned executions provide a safer living for the many citizens inside the nation state? Or is it that through these kind of methods we devalue life in the same way the killers and rapists have done? We therewith tell the children that murder is wrong, except in the name of punishment...

Furthermore, the possibility (though slimming through better evidence building and possible dna-testing) that even one single innocent person is put to death by the state in name of it´s people is enough to warrant the end of the death-penalty as punishment imho.
1. Murder is wrong. The death penalty is not murder. It is a punishment. A very severe one, yes, but it is a punishment. And only a judge can decide when the time is right to use it.

2. That's why I only support the death penalty with concrete evidence.

To those arguing that a state execution is murder, surely by that logic state imprisonment is kidnap/whatever is the correct term for it. Locking someone up against they're will is a crime, same as murder is a crime. Same applies re:taxes comparing to theft, community service to forced slave labour. If you are going to have state punishments then they are all going to be illegal if they were carried out by an individual without due cause (so I don't context drop:p )

1st: Depends on your definition of "need". We'll live if he's not dead, yes, but to have justice done? For murder, rape, and other stuff like that, it must be done.
And it is done with imprisonment. There is no need for the special type of punishment that the death penalty is (with all of it's inherrent extra risks), when imprisonment is adequate.

2nd: Yes, deters a lot, getting out on parole. :rolleyes:
You may refuse to see my point and try to change the subject. It is up to you. If you are not satisfied with the rules regarding parole, you may lobby to change them as well.
But I reiterate: The western criminal justice systems punish for a reason, not simply to punish.

I looked up murder in dictionary.com

mur·der Audio pronunciation of "murder" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrdr)
n.

1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.


It seems one of the deciding factors, linguistically speaking is that it is unlawful. Yet, there have been many instances in history when killing, sanctioned by the state (and therefore lawful), has been perceived as murder. If it is lawful, doesn´t mean it is rightfully so, there once were laws against black and white people going into the same restaurants/bathrooms/movie theatres... Yet it was found that even though it was lawful, didn´t mean it was right.

The second addition ot the definition defines what most people associate with murder: a premeditated malicious intent. Now: if the executioner, assigned to administer the fatal injection feels good about putting a serial killer to death, is he committing murder? He intentionally kills a fellow human being and he feels good about doing so, would that not in fact be an argument against execution in general as well?

While it may seem right to kill a man/woman who has killed others, is it not important to take into account what the act itself (as performed in accordance with law and sanctioned by state) brings about in the people associated with it, as well as people in general and society as a whole? The murderer/rapist/innocent(!) may be dead, but the act of killing him cannot be entirely without consequence

Meanwhile, I consider it the job of the representatives of the People to limit themselves to carrying out their platforms, and definetely not to start having ideas of their own.

Quite. And what if none of the major parties have a platform which includes Capital Punishment?

Incorrect. You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

Two points. First, this sentence is getting repetitive. Read something else. I'd say better, but you'd really have to go out of your way to find worse. Second, how about you provide references to some of her writings. Essays not fiction. There is no goal on Earth worth reading Rand's fiction. In a fit of insanity I read Anthem and the first chapter of Atlas Shrugged. God, that woman is a bore. Honestly, I'd rather read a novel you wrote!

Anyway, all legitimate crimes are morally equivalent to murder, and so they should all be punished the same way.

This is just BS.

In principle, I favor the death penalty for murder. In practice, I don't think it is possible to be certain enough of guilt in most cases to justify killing the suspect. The execution of even one innocent person is state-murder and intolerable.

Judeo-Christian moral teachings are incorrect.

No, Ayn Rand's moral teachings are incorrect.

What happens to the executioner who mistakenly executes someone who was innocent of the crime of which they were convicted. Having killed a fellow rational being (albeit under the impression that they were irrational), does this deprive them of their humanity.
I already answered this.

Only if you think that rationality is fundamental to human nature.

No, even if you don't, it still is.

That's what an "objective truth" is. It's true even if you disagree with it--you are simply wrong.

But surely punishment must serve a greater purpose?

Certainly.

It serves the purpose of justice.

Justice is: Ensuring that each individual has exactly what he deserves--no more and no less.

While it is impossible to restore life to the murder victim (thus giving him what HE deserves), it is possible to take life away from the murderer (thus giving him what he deserves). Certainly, something is better than nothing, is it not?

This is just BS..

No, it's not.

Consider, for instance, theft.

Let's say I have a couch that cost me $100, and I make $10 an hour. Then, you go and steal that couch from me, and destroy it. That is ten hours of my life that have now been irretrievably lost. Morally, it is no different than you killing me ten hours before I would otherwise have died.

Yes, I know that it's impossible to know for certain the precise moment when I would have died--but that's not the point. Whatever that time is, you have effectively bumped it up ten hours.

No, Ayn Rand's moral teachings are incorrect.

I defy you to refute a single word she ever said or wrote.

Incorrect. You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of almost anyone else.

Ms. Rand was a two-bit hack with little understanding of modern philosophy.


Anyway, all legitimate crimes are morally equivalent to murder, and so they should all be punished the same way.

And execution is a perfectly legitimate punishment for murderers.

Pray tell, what is a "legitimate crime"?

All crimes should be punished the same way -- by execution?

So, if a hungry man steals a loaf of bread from the supermarket, he deserves execution?

Here's why:

By killing a human being, an individual renounces his humanity. Since he is no longer human, he no longer possesses rights, which means you can do whatever you want to him--torture him, kill him, enslave him, whatever.

No. Our rights are inalienable. One does not renounce all rights by committing a crime.

How do I "renounce [my] humanity" by committing fraud?

The ultimate goal should be punishment, period. Not rehabilitation, not deterrence, simply punishment.

Why? Shouldn't the goal of a societal action be that greatest good which is consitent with individual rights?

You're big on making sweeping declarations that make little sense and small on explaining the details.

I defy you to refute a single word she ever said or wrote.

LOL.

That imposes the punishment on us of going back and reading (or re-reading) her garbage, just so we can have you stick your fingers in your ears and refuse to hear blasphemy against the Objectivist Messiah.

No, it's not.

Consider, for instance, theft.

Let's say I have a couch that cost me $100, and I make $10 an hour. Then, you go and steal that couch from me, and destroy it. That is ten hours of my life that have now been irretrievably lost. Morally, it is no different than you killing me ten hours before I would otherwise have died.

Yes, I know that it's impossible to know for certain the precise moment when I would have died--but that's not the point. Whatever that time is, you have effectively bumped it up ten hours.


Now there is no moral difference between petty theft and first degree murder?

If I steal your coach, I stole your coach -- nothing more, nothing less. I did not steal ten hours of your life. I certainly didn't kill you.

Apparently every thief should kill his victim. That would be no more wrong than the theft to begin with.

LOL.

That imposes the punishment on us of going back and reading (or re-reading) her garbage, just so we can have you stick your fingers in your ears and refuse to hear blasphemy against the Objectivist Messiah.
I'm reading Atlas shrugged right now to see what all the fuss was about, but I agree it's garbage. I'm only finishing it because I always finish books on principle.

You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of almost anyone else.
I have.

That's how I know they're wrong.

Ms. Rand was a two-bit hack with little understanding of modern philosophy.
She understood it quite well. That is how she knew it was wrong.

Try making an actual argument sometime, kthxbye.



All crimes should be punished the same way -- by execution?

So, if a hungry man steals a loaf of bread from the supermarket, he deserves execution?
Precisely.



No. Our rights are inalienable. One does not renounce all rights by committing a crime.
"Inalienable" means that they cannot be taken from you--it does not mean you cannot give them up.

Now there is no moral difference between petty theft and first degree murder?
Precisely.

If I steal your coach, I stole your coach -- nothing more, nothing less. I did not steal ten hours of your life.
Yes, you did. That couch is, quite literally, ten hours of my life. I spent ten hours of my life to obtain it. There is, in principle, no difference between the two. Take the couch, and you've taken ten hours of my life.

Unless something went horribly wrong, you should have a brain. Try using it sometime.

Try understanding the notion of "principle".

I'm reading Atlas shrugged right now to see what all the fuss was about, but I agree it's garbage. I'm only finishing it because I always finish books on principle.

What, precisely, do you object to?

Precisely.


Yes, you did. That couch is, quite literally, ten hours of my life. I spent ten hours of my life to obtain it. There is, in principle, no difference between the two. Take the couch, and you've taken ten hours of my life.

Unless something went horribly wrong, you should have a brain. Try using it sometime.

Try understanding the notion of "principle".

Gee, why are objectivists always so quick to flame?

The couch is not "literally ten hours of your life." If I kill you, I do you greater injury than if I steal your couch.

I understand the notion of "principle" pefectly well, how does your nonsense relate to it?

Under your "principle" a twelve year old that steals a candy bar deserves the same treatment as Ted Bundy. Your "principle" is absurd on its face.

What, precisely, do you object to?
The fact that it's crap. The characters are completely one dimensional and it's rather boring.

*snip*

You did not answer the question about what is and is not a "legitimate" crime?

I assume all homicides are legitimate crimes.

Can you explain why someone who is guilty of involuntary manslaughter should be treated the same as someone that commits rape and premeditated murder?

2nd: Yes, deters a lot, getting out on parole. :rolleyes:

That is an argument that a life sentence with the chance of parole is not as effective a deterrent as a death sentence. It is not an argument against deterrence itself.

Certainly.

It serves the purpose of justice.

Justice is: Ensuring that each individual has exactly what he deserves--no more and no less.

While it is impossible to restore life to the murder victim (thus giving him what HE deserves), it is possible to take life away from the murderer (thus giving him what he deserves). Certainly, something is better than nothing, is it not?

That is merely retributive justice.

No, even if you don't, it still is.

That's what an "objective truth" is. It's true even if you disagree with it--you are simply wrong.

No, in this case you have merely defined as an objective truth what you believe to be true. In your logic, you believe it to be true, so you are right. I don't believe it to be true, so I am wrong. You have provided absolutely no evidence to support your assertion. The mere fact that you have labelled yourself an "objectivist" does not make everything that you believe an objective truth.

You have also failed to address any of the four points below which I made earlier.

Circular logic. By defining humans as rational creatures, you then claim that irrational acts deprive them of their humanity. Firstly, that definition of humanity does not accord with the reality that for much of our history, humans have survived based on the instincts of self-preservation and perpetuation of species/protection of young. Further, there is much evidence to suggest that protection of young is actually the stronger of the two instincts ... parents will die to protect their young, and so forth (the selfish gener prevails). As such, I would suggest that survival of a human is dependent on instinct, and is even subordinate to the greater natural imperative of survival of the species.

Secondly, that raises the interesting question of whether any irrational act deprives someone of their humanity, and therefore results in justifiably killing them. Do you propose putting to death anyone who acts irrationally?

Thirdly, there is a gap on your logic. Even assuming that you are correct that an irrational act deprives someone of their humanity, this does not justify killing them unless that is in the rational self-interest of the person doing the killing. Many on this thread have suggested that the costs of capital punishment ouweigh the benefits, and therefore it might not be in a person's rational self-interest to kill someone simply because they are a killer. It might be more rational to lock them away for the rest of eternity.

Fourth, it also raises the question of whether someone could kill someone merely because it is their rational self-interest even if that person has not acted irrationally. For example, it might be in my rational self-interest to kill off my closest business competitor, if I knew I could get away with it.

I already answered this.

Please enlighten me ... where?

Thou shalt not kill is pretty clear to me. It is wrong for Chrisitans to kill.

Ah, but it's not that simple, is it?
Because we have to kill to survive. We eat meat, as God commanded us to after the Flood, and even if we go vegetarian that still means killing to live.
Because plants are alive.
Sure, some crops, like fruit, don't require the death of the plant, but in order for those crops to succeed we need to kill a heck of a lot of bugs who like to eat the fruit.
And, of course, we have to kill a lot of plants in order to clear an orchard.
And that's just food. Don't get me started on building homes, roads, etc.
Or the fact that our bodies kill invading bacteria.

Sure, you're probably thinking, "But it just means 'don't kill humans'".
You're partially right. A more accurate translation is actually, "Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder".
The Bible, in case you missed it, distinguises between murder and execution.
That's why the Old Testament is chock full of laws for killing people if they cross the line too far and do something wrong.

Judeo-Christian moral teachings are incorrect.

Not really.
Just tragically misunderstood.

Any act that is in your own RATIONAL self-interest is moral.

Sure, but that's not in conflict with the morals in the Bible.

The death penalty is right. Criminals should get what they deserve. Simple as that. The social, economical, and moral consequences are secondary when compared to the serving of justice.

Because they are volitionally REJECTING their nature--which is itself an irrational act.

It's more than an irrational act, it's an irrational statement.
How is it possible for anything to truly go against its own nature?

I defy you to refute a single word she ever said or wrote.

Howard Roark never actually laughed.
He never even existed.

It's more than an irrational act, it's an irrational statement.
How is it possible for anything to truly go against its own nature?

Because he is confusing his human ideal with human nature.

My personal opinion is that the death penalty DOES NOT serve as a deterrent to crime. The statistics in the US have shown this.

I do believe it should be reserved for the most extreme crimes, such as murder or rape of children, 1st degree/premeditated murder, serial murderers, and terrorists.

As for the risk of putting innocent people to death, thats a tricky issue. With DNA science and testing advancing each year, the risks are reduced. But these systems are only as good as the people who work them.

As for the alternative of rehabilitation, well, not all criminals can be rehabilitated. For example, serial killers like Russias Andrei Chicotillo or Jeffrey Dahmer in the US, are the type of killers that should be either put to death or kept behind bars forever and studied. Unless governments are willing to put forth concrete, long term, and workable social programs for rehabilitation and define how they will be funded, then rehabilitation will not be effective.

Because they are volitionally REJECTING their nature--which is itself an irrational act.

All evil stems from an individual's volitional rejection of his fundamental nature of his rational nature.

How can you reject your nature? If it is your nature, by definition you cannot reject it.

What is "irrational" about murder?

The death penalty is right. Criminals should get what they deserve. Simple as that. The social, economical, and moral consequences are secondary when compared to the serving of justice.

That is retribution only. And many people would disagree that is all justice is or should be.

That is retribution only. And many people would disagree that is all justice is or should be.

It IS retribution. When did I call it anything else?

You're also sending them to hell before they can repent, which is why Hamlet didn't kill Claudius while he was praying.

It IS retribution. When did I call it anything else?

You're also sending them to hell before they can repent, which is why Hamlet didn't kill Claudius while he was praying.

Except unbeknownst to Hamlet, Claudius was not actually able to pray. He should have dispatched him then .... posthaste. :)

Except unbeknownst to Hamlet, Claudius was not actually able to pray. He should have dispatched him then .... posthaste. :)

Yes, this dramatic irony is the unfortunate cause of all the tragedy to follow.

Polonius deserved it though.

And he didn't even kill anyone! Even Shakespeare thought death is justifiable....

Polonius deserved it though.

For what? His promise to Claudius about the cause of Hamlet's madness? Or just his general irritating personality?

Polonius might have deserved it, but Laertes and Ophelia certainly didn't.

It IS retribution. When did I call it anything else?



I thought you were suggesting it was justice. And since justice is to do with what is morally right and wrong, then moral considerations do come into play.

It has been suggested in this thread that justice includes such other considerations as rehabilitation. And some societies have a focus on justice that is more restorative than retributive.

All of this is to say, that there are many considerations that can come into play.

For what? His promise to Claudius about the cause of Hamlet's madness? Or just his general irritating personality?

His personality.

Polonius might have deserved it, but Laertes and Ophelia certainly didn't.

Laertes did deserve it.
Ophelia didn't.

For what? His promise to Claudius about the cause of Hamlet's madness? Or just his general irritating personality?

Polonius might have deserved it, but Laertes and Ophelia certainly didn't.

Point one: Shakespeare certainly thought he deserved it. It is only through his death that balance is restored. The restoration of balance is the central focal point of any victorian play. He deserved it because he was cruel, sly, and ignorant. HE caused the deaths of his children. HE caused his own death. Not Hamlet. Laertes admitted to this fact just before he died.

Point two: That's why it's a tragedy.

Laertes did deserve it.

No, he was bound by filial obligation. He was deceived by Claudius.

Passionately blind was what he was, not that's not his fault.

Laertes did deserve it.
Ophelia didn't.

What do you have against Laertes?

Hamlet killed five people in the course of getting vengeance for his father's death; surely we can excuse Laertes of one.

The restoration of balance is the central focal point of any victorian play. .



Not to be petty but ... Elizabethan?

What do you have against Laertes?

Hamlet killed five people in the course of getting vengeance for his father's death; surely we can excuse Laertes of one.

Claudius killed them all - indirectly. He is the supreme villain and the cause of every death.

I thought it was kind of cheap how Fortinbras just took over at the end. How unsatisfying.

Not to be petty but ... Elizabethan?

Excuse me, you're right.

But if you're going to be petty, then it's James I.

Tudors (1485-1509) (Henry VII-Elizabeth)

Henry VII (1485-1509)
Henry VIII (1509-1547)
Edward VI (1547-1553)
Mary (1553-1558)
Elizabeth (1558-1603)


Stuarts (James I-Anne) (1603-1714)

James I (1603-1625)
Charles I (1625-1649)

Point one: Shakespeare certainly thought he deserved it. It is only through his death that balance is restored. The restoration of balance is the central focal point of any victorian play. He deserved it because he was cruel, sly, and ignorant. HE caused the deaths of his children. HE caused his own death. Not Hamlet. Laertes admitted to this fact just before he died.

Shakespeare, at least if we are going by his plays, had a lot of strange ideas about morality.

Polonius, unlike Claudius, Hamlet, and Laertes, killed no one. He at least deserves some credit for that. While it could be construed that he caused his children's deaths, it was indirectly. The only really severe moral wrong he committed was the way he used Ophelia.

Point two: That's why it's a tragedy.

True.

Claudius killed them all - indirectly. He is the supreme villain and the cause of every death.

Hamlet's recklessness deserves at least a portion of the blame. His callousness towards human life was inexcusable.

Precisely.


Yes, you did. That couch is, quite literally, ten hours of my life. I spent ten hours of my life to obtain it. There is, in principle, no difference between the two. Take the couch, and you've taken ten hours of my life.

Unless something went horribly wrong, you should have a brain. Try using it sometime.

Try understanding the notion of "principle".

So send him to prison for ten hours :)
Think about it.

Get to writing on your RP thread. I want to see where that's going.

No, it's not.

Consider, for instance, theft.

Let's say I have a couch that cost me $100, and I make $10 an hour. Then, you go and steal that couch from me, and destroy it. That is ten hours of my life that have now been irretrievably lost. Morally, it is no different than you killing me ten hours before I would otherwise have died.

Yes, I know that it's impossible to know for certain the precise moment when I would have died--but that's not the point. Whatever that time is, you have effectively bumped it up ten hours.

Again, BS. Killing someone for theft is murder.

No, even if you don't, it still is.

That's what an "objective truth" is. It's true even if you disagree with it--you are simply wrong.

For the purposes of argument I will grant the existence of an, "objective truth," you and the, "estimable," Ayn Rand :headbang:, don't have any special grasp on what it might be. Osama bin-freaking Laden has his own ideas about, "objective morality." I would actually give Rand a smidge more credence.

Because they are volitionally REJECTING their nature--which is itself an irrational act.

All evil stems from an individual's volitional rejection of his fundamental nature of his rational nature.


So mans irrationality is a result of man wanting to be irrational? And all evil stems from man wanting to be irrational? So you yourself have no irratioanl thoughts excepting those that you want to?

No.

Don't be so shallow.

Committing violence against a human causes one to reject his humanity. Thus, since the one who commits violence is no longer human, committing violence against HIM does not cause the rape victim to reject her humanity, because what she is committing violence against is not human.

What! So what about soldiers in time of war? Which side is the human side and which the side that by their violent actions are no longer human?
I guess that would depend on which side you where on huh!?!

Also if we have amongst us humans that although look like humans are actualy not human as a result of their actions, then it is perfectly okay to do violence to them? How do we tell them apart from humans then? They look, sound and act as humans, cept they are not and it would be irrational would it not to let creaturs that could pass as us, and thus ultimatly do us all great harm, to live. We should cull them huh!?!? Especilay if we do not lose our humanity by doing so.

This is quite frankly ilogical, ill thought out, bordering on the facist, twaddle. Sorry but it really is.

No, even if you don't, it still is.

That's what an "objective truth" is. It's true even if you disagree with it--you are simply wrong.

Fine then if it is an objective truth, you will have no problems proving it's validity to me.

The death penalty is right. Criminals should get what they deserve. Simple as that. The social, economical, and moral consequences are secondary when compared to the serving of justice.


Yeah again another facist view point. So who decides what justice should be mete out and to who? And what happens if it is decided that you must face justice for your crimes? What recourse have you then got?

The social, economical, and moral consequences are secondary when compared to the serving of justice.Seems like an odd sense of justice if it is unconcerned with consequences. Justice has to do right by the people involved.

Looking at consequences, (whimpers a little about not getting any reply), if it is a consequence of the death penalty to demoralize the committers of the lethal injection/execution, is that not a valid argument against it as well?

Now, to further define demoralizing: while some people say that morality is purely subjective and it has no basis in objectivity whatsoever, I think most people would agree that it is a bad thing to kill someone.

Another thing which is often added to strengthen the moral "wrong" of a killing committed is the criminal intent and malice that accompanied the crime. I ask my question again: is it a defendable thing for the executioner to enjoy killing the murderer? Does it not in turn make him a murderer even though he is acting upon orders? (though a defense that has lost much of it´s power since the nüremberg trials).

He might believe he is doing good for the world, his country, the people who suffered at the hands of the murderer he is about to kill, and gain a sense of doing right from that. But he is still killing another human being, who has not given up being human by killing another. The man on death row has done wrong, and a horrible wrong at that. But in what way is killing a justifiable defense of killing?

And to reiterate: just because the killing is sanctioned by the state does not make it right. When murder is seen as unlawful killing only, that leaves way too much open space for a lot of nasty government doings.

Finally:

The person who claimed that thievery is punishable by death might be pretty lonely in a western democracy, and might prefer living under a more strict dictatorial/theocratic rule

What do you have against Laertes?

Hamlet killed five people in the course of getting vengeance for his father's death; surely we can excuse Laertes of one.

Nope.
Trying to fix a fight and use a poison sword makes you a bad guy in my book.

again, no, it isn't.

1. Can't logically deter crime (murder is committed by sociopaths/psychopaths... or as an act of passion... or as part of a carefully planned thing, for which the planning has taken away the possibility of being caught in the mind of the perp).

This may or may not be valid, but it certainly doesn't help the pro-DP faction: states without the death penalty have a lower average murder rate than states that have it.

2. Costs too much (costs less to incarcerate someone for the remainder of his natural life)

3. Innocent people have been killed by the death penalty. That's unacceptable.

I believe in second chances for less serious crimes. But a mass murderer or evil dictator with absolute proof of commiting the crimes, then the death penalty is the only way to bring justice do mend all of his/her wrongs(more likely a him)

I believe in second chances for less serious crimes. But a mass murderer or evil dictator with absolute proof of commiting the crimes, then the death penalty is the only way to bring justice do mend all of his/her wrongs(more likely a him)

if you really wanted to make him suffer... why not stick him in a 27-cubic-foot (3*3*3) cell without light for the rest of his life?

That is merely retributive justice.

If it's retributive, it's not justice at all.

3. Innocent people have been killed by the death penalty. That's unacceptable.

But George W. Bush says no innocent person has ever been killed by the death penalty. :)

Looking at consequences, (whimpers a little about not getting any reply), if it is a consequence of the death penalty to demoralize the committers of the lethal injection/execution, is that not a valid argument against it as well?



Certainly ... if the executioner and others lose respect for human life as a result of participating in the execution, that would be a strike against the death penalty.

But George W. Bush says no innocent person has ever been killed by the death penalty. :)
Then it must be so :p

...too bad that's not the case in the UK, though:
In the U.K., recent reviews have resulted in one pardon and three exonerations for people executed between 1950 and 1953.
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment#Wrongful_executions)

1. Can't logically deter crime (murder is committed by sociopaths/psychopaths... or as an act of passion... or as part of a carefully planned thing, for which the planning has taken away the possibility of being caught in the mind of the perp).

This may or may not be valid, but it certainly doesn't help the pro-DP faction: states without the death penalty have a lower average murder rate than states that have it.

You're right, it's not really valid. There are far too many variables at play there. And correlation doesn't equal causation.


2. Costs too much (costs less to incarcerate someone for the remainder of his natural life)

I hear this a lot but don't understand how that could be - except for lawyer fees for death row appeals. Which is a good thing, or so I'm told.


3. Innocent people have been killed by the death penalty. That's unacceptable.

Innocent people have been incarcerated and killed by other prisoners too. Or simply died in prison. Is that any more acceptable? Yet you already implicitly accept it - it's part of the fact that a justice system isn't perfect.

Innocent people have been incarcerated and killed by other prisoners too. Or simply died in prison.So we might as well kill them all ourselves?

Is that any more acceptable?Some people die walking under a tram. Stuff happens.
The point is if someone is innocent, and doesn't die while in prison, and you find out they're innocent, then you can set them free and maybe compensate some of the ordeal.
If you kill them, you can't raise them from the dead. There's not even a chance to compensate for your mistake.

Innocent people have been incarcerated and killed by other prisoners too. Or simply died in prison. Is that any more acceptable? Yet you already implicitly accept it - it's part of the fact that a justice system isn't perfect.
There is a difference between the killing by the state as a form of punishment, and the killing by another person as a criminal act.

In the first case, death is intentional since that is the actual punishment.

In the second case death is not a part of the punishment. It is a more or less arbitrary happenstance, something that doesn't happen too frequently and which the prison system seeks to prevent. The killer is (should be) punished regardless of the guilt or innocence of his victim.

It is to a large degree a question of minimizing the risks of a fatal outcome, should a conviction be wrong. The possibility of being killed in prison are tiny, especially compared to the risk of being killed after being sentenced to death.


The point is if someone is innocent, and doesn't die while in prison, and you find out they're innocent, then you can set them free and maybe compensate some of the ordeal.
If you kill them, you can't raise them from the dead. There's not even a chance to compensate for your mistake.
I agree.

First of all, practically speaking ... is it effective? Does is serve as a deterrent to criminals? Is it successful in reducing crime?

No. America, for example, is I believe the only Western country to still utilise capital punishment. And America has one of the highest crime rates (especially murder, violent crimes and gun crimes) in the Western world. Whereas some of the most liberal European countries without the death penalty have extremely low crime rates in comparison.

Second of all, morally speaking ... how does the state justify a monopoly on legal killing? To what extent are we willing to tolerate the risk of innocent people being put to death for a crime they did not commit?

There is no moral justification for it. And there can be NO toleration of innocent deaths, or indeed any deaths. As 100% certainty of guilt is virtually impossible to determine (otherwise, no need for courts!), there can be no toleration of the death penalty either.

Thirdly, does it have any other benefits or drawbacks? Does it increase or decrease faith in the justice system?

Well, if a person is jailed and later found to be innocent with new techniques and released, that will have varying effects -- some people will have less faith in the justice system because an innocent man was imprisoned, but others will have more faith in the justice system because an innocent man was released. If a person is executed and later found to be innocent with new techniques, everybody has decreased faith in the justice system.

No. America, for example, is I believe the only Western country to still utilise capital punishment.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/Death_Penalty_World_Map.png/800px-Death_Penalty_World_Map.png

In the case of the US, the picture should be further split up, because it differs per state.

http://www.prisonpolicy.org/images/juvenile_dp_consensus.jpg

In the case of the US, the picture should be further split up, because it differs per state.
Alternatively:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fb/Death_penalty_statutes_in_the_united_states.png/800px-Death_penalty_statutes_in_the_united_states.png