Innocence Lost

[Sayonara]

You haven't actually said why the death penalty is a just sentence.

[blike]

Blike, does that count as a double murder?

Oddly, yes.

[Sayonara]

Weird.

[blike]

You haven't actually said why the death penalty is a just sentence.

If a society holds that a human life is invaluable, and justice is "the assignment of merited rewards or punishments", then anything less than the executing murderers is, by definition, an unjust punishment.

[Sayonara]

But surely with those provisions, the punishment of death is also unjust.

 

It might be "warranted" or "appropriate", but we're still left with the fact that we are defining life as invaluable, then striking it down.

[blike]

But surely with those provisions, the punishment of death is also unjust.

 

It might be "warranted" or "appropriate", but we're still left with the fact that we are defining life as invaluable, then striking it down.

 

But capital punishment is not unjust, by definition, because it is merited. The removal of the invaluable life is not in vain, it is owed (in a manner of speaking).

[Sayonara]

So, in fact, human life is invaluable unless it's not?

[blike]

It is invaluable. That's the reason ONLY the removal of an invaluable life will offset the unjust removal of another invaluable life. Infinite is owed, and thus, only infinite can repay. Perhaps a better definition is that, "the only as valuable as a human life is another human life."

[Aardvark]

Australia is almost entirely desert-like wasteland.

 

Common misconception, even the arid centre is beautiful and capable of sustaining prosperous agriculture.

[AL]

If a society holds that a human life is invaluable, and justice is "the assignment of merited rewards or punishments", then anything less than the executing murderers is, by definition, an unjust punishment.

That failure to employ capital punishment on murderers is unjust doesn't really follow from your definitions. You need to identify what criteria are used to determine "merit." Justice would assign merited punishments to a murderer, but before you conclude that this entails capital punishment, you'd need to explain how it was determined that capital punishment met the "merit" criteria. You'll find that merit critera varies from individual to individual.

 

 

My personal objection to capital punishment is primarily a pragmatic one. The punishment does not, in my opinion, accomplish anything useful except to satisfy some people's emotions on the matter, which is a poor criterion for dishing out a penalty. I don't doubt that if someone I loved or cared about was killed, I would want the killer to die a horrible, excruciating death by brutal torture. But this is an emotional appeal, and not a good basis for policy. In addition, to send one innocent person to death, even by accident, is morally reprehensible because such a death was unnecessary and easily avoidable if society didn't feel the need to carry out a pointless act.

 

 

It is invaluable. That's the reason ONLY the removal of an invaluable life will offset the unjust removal of another invaluable life. Infinite is owed, and thus, only infinite can repay. Perhaps a better definition is that, "the only as valuable as a human life is another human life."

I'm not sure I follow this. I understand the "infinite" debt and the invaluableness of life, but how does taking a life "repay" anything? Maybe if you believe in Karma and that "life for a life" somehow balances out the cosmos. But these kinds of quantitative comparisons in a non-quantitative context can lead to bizarre results. I could argue that the best way to "repay" a taken life would be to create a new one -- should death row inmates then be forced to have children?

 

It's probably best to avoid moral or cosmic "balancing equations" of this sort.

[TimeTraveler]

I Have not read all the pages in this discussion so this might have already been said.

 

I think we need to become more aware of our culture and where the criminal roots are. I don't think it is really fair for anyone to take anothers life, wheather it be considered murder or it is considered justice, killing someone is still killing someone no matter what the reason. Life in a labor camp giving back to humanity might be a better solution.

[Rakasha]

Infinite is owed, and thus, only infinite can repay.

 

Hum, something seems odd when backing up the capital penalty with this logic. I sense a problem caused by the method of repayment.

 

If the punitive laws were simply about retribution, then whipping would be easier than incarceration. Bad deeds = pain, at it's simplest form. But the current price of serious crimes are your days among society. We could see it as criminals ending up losing some of the benefits of the social contract. Their crime revoked x days of enjoying society and such.

 

But one can't lose more than all the benefits of the social contract. If we consider murder to cost an infinitely long period of life among society, the result is that the person cannot live in society again. Based on the current scheme, we'd be looking at life incarceration as the ultimate price, it seems to me.

 

Whether or not the comment was an a.h. depends on whether the comment meets the criteria for defining something as an a.h., and this one does not.

 

Cool, then to finnish this matter once and for all, could you point me to any source presenting those criteria ? I have searched and searched to no avail, it seems. Everywhere I looked, an ad hominem described a comment which's attacked a person. Was I mislead ?

[Sayonara]

It is invaluable. That's the reason ONLY the removal of an invaluable life will offset the unjust removal of another invaluable life. Infinite is owed, and thus, only infinite can repay. Perhaps a better definition is that, "the only as valuable as a human life is another human life."

Offset?

 

-1 plus -1 does not equal zero.

 

 

[edit]

 

Given that there are plenty of fates worse than death, if one accepts that killing someone requires equal punishment it is perfectly possible to put together such a punishment without depriving that person of their life. The punishment does not have to fit the crime. This is, in fact, the norm in most justice systems.

 

Personally, I would consider being incarcerated for my entire natural life, deprived of my position in society, and forced to perform labour I have no interest in to be a pretty grim sentence.

[Sayonara]

Cool, then to finnish this matter once and for all, could you point me to any source presenting those criteria ? I have searched and searched to no avail, it seems. Everywhere I looked, an ad hominem described a comment which's attacked a person. Was I mislead ?

Apparently so.

 

This site is not as historically inclusive as I'd like but it gives good explanations:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

 

 

[edit]

 

The site seems to be down, but here is the Google cache of the a.h. page. The example is not very good.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cache:wVWXOABNB2AJ:www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html+nizkor+fallacies&hl=en

[JaKiri]

But capital punishment is not unjust, by definition, because it is merited[/u']. The removal of the invaluable life is not in vain, it is owed (in a manner of speaking).

 

Revenge isn't a good basis for governance.

[Artorius]

My personal objection to capital punishment is primarily a pragmatic one. The punishment does not' date=' in my opinion, accomplish anything useful except to satisfy some people's emotions on the matter, which is a poor criterion for dishing out a penalty. I don't doubt that if someone I loved or cared about was killed, I would want the killer to die a horrible, excruciating death by brutal torture. But this is an emotional appeal, and not a good basis for policy. In addition, to send one innocent person to death, even by accident, is morally reprehensible because such a death was unnecessary and easily avoidable if society didn't feel the need to carry out a pointless act.[/quote']no ..no...NO !!

what is reprehensible is using this example of an innocent person put to death,as a reason to abolish CP from society.CP sends society a message ...and its "hey asshole..psycho...freak...if you want your liberty and to carry out your days being part of society....then before you snuf out someones life for your own sadistic pleasure....you better think carefully and be prepared for your peers to fry your scum butt,without a wet sponge on your head".

 

Now clearly this CP is not a deterrent to some individuals,hence they kill.But on the whole millions of people cherish their liberty and comply with societys laws.(Not because we dont feel like killing people,which is an instinctive urge as we are animals)Therefore CP or incarceration is a deterrent, and the fruits of such laws enable the majority, to enjoy hunter gathering without the fear of ones neighbour clubbing our spouse over the head ,and helping themselves to a little carnal recreation.

Now if to rid ourselves of a thousand serial killers, just one innocent has to die...then thats a sacrifice for a cause...and that persons death is not in vain!!!.

Now maybe the minority of do-gooders will find a way to go through our court systems and lead us to abolish CP or incarceration for certain offences.And the majority will accept it because we live in a civilised world.But unfortunately one hopes common sense prevail because walking that path leads us to anarchy..

In the Uk we abolished corporal punishment in our schools which as resulted in kids running around stabbing each other between classes, and a few decades of juvenile mob rule on street corners,these kids have no respect for either parents or society as a whole...i would love to see corporal punishment re-introduced and methinks it will not be too far away...jeez now the govn hypocrytical do-gooders want to abolish our chastizing our own children...

[blike]

-1 plus -1 does not equal zero.

Think of justice as a scale, not a math equation. You can't put 1N of force on one side and -1N of force on the other and expect it to balance.

 

 

 

 

But these kinds of quantitative comparisons in a non-quantitative context can lead to bizarre results. I could argue that the best way to "repay" a taken life would be to create a new one -- should death row inmates then be forced to have children?

 

It's probably best to avoid moral or cosmic "balancing equations" of this sort.

You could argue that, but that's not justice in any sense. I agree about the ambiguity of quantifying the argument, but I felt the point was being severely comprimised by my ability to communicate the idea. The logic does follow, at least in my opinion, but perhaps I was not stating it clearly enough. I threw in some alternate--but admittedly more ambiguous--ways of looking at it. Of course I am not relating it to karma or anything.

 

You'll find that merit critera varies from individual to individual.

I agree, somewhat. But if a jury decides that murdering someone 'merits' life in prison, then they are saying that the victims life is worth 50 years in prison. And thus, they have quantified the victim's worth.

 

The punishment does not[/u'] have to fit the crime. This is, in fact, the norm in most justice systems.

Indeed, the punishment does not have to and does not always fit the crime. In that case, justice is not being preserved. As I said before, many societies are fine with that. But how can a society proclaim, "Human life is invaluable!" and then out of the other side of their mouth say "Well, it's actually only worth a lifetime of freedom". Furthermore, how can a country maintain that human life is invaluable but then not enforce justice for the innocent victim.

 

Revenge isn't a good basis for governance.

atinymonkey and I briefly discussed whether or not punishment for crimes (specifically capital punishment) is revenge some time back. Why do you think that it is? Where is the line between revenge, punishment, retribution, etc. Any punishment could be likely argued to be a form societal revenge. Retribution and recompense could also be argued for as a form of revenge.

[Sayonara]

Think of justice as a scale, not a math equation. You can't put 1N of force on one side and -1N of force on the other and expect it to balance.

That was kind of my point Blike. How does destroying something we have defined as invaluable redress the balance of something invaluable being destroyed?

 

 

Indeed, the punishment does not have to and does not always fit the crime. In that case, justice is not being preserved.

That's like saying if you lend me a $20 bill and I give you back two $10 bills, I have not repaid the debt.

 

What you are saying here is that the only true justice system is one in which the sentence is always the mirror of the crime. But if "an eye for an eye" was workable, it surely would be mainstream all over the advanced world, given that most countries have had justice systems for quite a while.

 

 

As I said before, many societies are fine with that. But how can a society proclaim, "Human life is invaluable!" and then out of the other side of their mouth say "Well, it's actually only worth a lifetime of freedom".

They aren't saying that at all. Depriving someone of the freedom to be self-determining renders any of the attributes associated with being alive fairly pointless, so with the exception of being less barbaric it's essentially the same think as "taking life".

 

The fact that some people (i.e. the family) feel that the perpetrator deserves death as their punishment is understandable, but immaterial to the proceedings.

 

I really don't see how you can compare life imprisonment in jail with a relatively quick death and decide the former is a "soft option".

 

 

Furthermore, how can a country maintain that human life is invaluable but then not enforce justice for the innocent victim.

Firstly, I don't accept that justice can only be served by a punishment that mirrors a crime exactly, so I don't really need to respond to that.

 

Secondly, I would point out that not all countries actually do hold human life invaluable, and those that do frequently have to make decisions that cost lives regardless, so obviously absolutes are simply not applicable here.

 

Thirdly, I would say that in your scenario, it would be no less hypocritical than a country that claims to hold life to be invaluable yet is willing to destroy it in order to make a point that obviously is not getting across. Someone who has been executed doesn't really care how they stand relative to society.

[JaKiri]

atinymonkey and I briefly discussed whether or not punishment for crimes (specifically capital punishment) is revenge some time back. Why do you think that it is? Where is the line between revenge' date=' punishment, retribution, etc. Any punishment could be likely argued to be a form societal revenge. Retribution and recompense could also be argued for as a form of revenge.

[/quote']

 

I was referring to the 'it is owed' in your post.

[blike]

That was kind of my point Blike. How does destroying something we have defined as invaluable redress the balance of something invaluable being destroyed?

I don't think your point was the same point I was making. Your point was that destroying life to redress a destroyed life is like adding -1 and -1 trying to get zero. My point was that justice is perceived as a scale, and thus balance is only acheived by -1 and -1.

 

That's like saying if you lend me a $20 bill and I give you back two $10 bills, I have not repaid the debt.

 

What you are saying here is that the only true justice system is one in which the sentence is always the mirror of the crime. But if "an eye for an eye" was workable, it surely would be mainstream all over the advanced world, given that most countries have had justice systems for quite a while.

That's not what I am saying. The modern justice system is essentially what you have described. As I said in earlier posts, we do not steal theives cars, nor do we beat those who are guilty of domestic violence. We are not an eye for an eye society. Any system of justice has quantified offenses against society into either a monitary value or a defined number of days in jail. We, as a society, say: "Stealing a car is worth 10 years in prison. Stealing a car at gunpoint is worth 12 years in prison." That is what law is. This is easy to do because we, as a society, can quantify all of these offenses. A car is worth a certain amount of money, and so we can say justice has been preserved when we put a theif in prison for stealing a car.

 

But a society who calls life invaluable cannot quantify life. We cannot make it a monitary value. We cannot define it as a certain amount of days in prison. That is why we, as the United States, do not have an eye for an eye society EXCEPT in the case of murder. We can quantify the damage to all other things: property, money, assets, bodily harm, everything. We cannot quantify the damage done by removing human life into 75, 100, or even 200 years in prison.

 

How does destroying something we have defined as invaluable redress the balance of something invaluable being destroyed?

Because only something invaluable can redress the balance of something invaluable. This concept is the very foundation of justice. What is taken is owed.

 

_____________________________________________________________

 

We're repeating ourselves too much here. Lets try a different approach to the argument. I'll ask a few questions and you answer them. Then I'll ask some more, you answer, then we'll flip. You ask, I answer.

 

1) Do you believe life is invaluable (just asking because it's fundamental to our discussion)?

 

2) Is the purpose of social law to render justice? Justice in this case may not be an "eye for an eye", but two $10s for a $20, as you stated earlier. The end result is that the punishment fits the crime, though it may not be the exact same action as the crime. For example, stealing a car might result in 10 years in prison.

 

2a) If not, what is its purpose and what is the basis for rendering punishment?

[JaKiri]

But a society who calls life invaluable cannot quantify life. We cannot make it a monitary value. We cannot define it as a certain amount of days in prison.

 

How about an infinite number of (potential) days in prison?

[blike]

excellent question. I don't have an immediate answer. I'll have to mull it over awhile.

[Drug addict]

 

1) Do you believe life is invaluable (just asking because it's fundamental to our discussion)?

 

 

That's a very tough question to answer with a simple yes or no! I am anti-CP, pro-abortion and and pro-euthanasia and I believe these are not inconsistent positions to take.

 

So, is life invaluable? It depends on a) your definition of life and b) the circumstances

[jdurg]

I love these types of debates. Here's my view on it. I am somewhat anti-CP simply because it's so expensive and time consuming. It requires a LOT of public money to go through the entire process and a LOT of time in order to ensure the sentenced is indeed guilty. It's cheaper to just keep them locked up for the rest of their life. However, I think that if a convicted felon wants to die rather than spend his eternity in jail, let him get executed. This would be something that would be given to the convicted upon sentencing. Tell them that they can either spend the rest of their life in jail, or they can be executed. Give them a good deal of time to decide and let them make the final choice.

 

For abortion, I am mostly pro-choice. However, I am COMPLETELY against late term abortions. Once conception takes place, the pregnant woman has plenty of time to decide if they want to get an abortion. There is no excuse for going half-way through the pregnancy and then saying 'Nah, lets get an abortion'. I agree with early term abortions because we're human. We make mistakes. Perhaps the Birth Control didn't work. Perhaps the condom broke. Maybe you were under the influence and you shouldn't have been having sex. Maybe you were raped? Do you really think the eventual child would be better off living with a mother who does not want him/her or cannot provide for him/her? Overall, the impact on society could be far more expensive and far worse for that neglected child. Therefore, upon finding out about the pregnancy the woman should be able to abort the child.

[sepultallica]

hey, i didnt see anyone mention that that peterson guy will be recieving the death penalty. that was a pretty high profile case in the commonwealth of california. some interesting facts that i learned, since the death penalty was reintroduced in california in 1978, more people have commited suicide on death row than have been executed. so with that in mind, isint it possible for there to exist more horrible punishment?