zapatos Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 Well, given that we have a fool proof method of determining whether someone will reoffend, I think that it's logical that we also have a fool proof method of determining the exact punishment that would have deterred someone from committing the crime in the first place if they'd known it would be applied to them, and that this should be the punishment for anyone who won't be reoffending. That seems like it would do the most effective job of offering a deterrence to committing crimes in the first place. You believe in punishment. Ten oz said he does not. That is why I asked him. Deterrence was not the issue.
Ten oz Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 So given that you believe the government should keep dangerous people off the streets, and that we should not be 'punishing' them, you seem to be saying that anyone who kills for a reason other than defense should be jailed for life, since they are a risk to do it again. Yes, dangerous people should be kept off the streets. That should be the function of a prison system. You believe in punishment. Ten oz said he does not. That is why I asked him. Deterrence was not the issue. I never posted that I do not believe in punishment. I said that the function of laws should be about safety not punishment. There are contexts where punishing someone can help them be more safe. Like fining a resturant that violates codes or ticketing someone for speeding. Those punishments are designed to effect future behavior. They are not about retribution. Context matters.
zapatos Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 Yes, dangerous people should be kept off the streets. That should be the function of a prison system. Interesting perspective. Locking up someone for something they might do in the future. I never posted that I do not believe in punishment. I said that the function of laws should be about safety not punishment. There are contexts where punishing someone can help them be more safe. Like fining a resturant that violates codes or ticketing someone for speeding. Those punishments are designed to effect future behavior. They are not about retribution. Context matters. Great! So back to my previous question. Assuming we had a full proof method, if someone who robbed or killed is no longer a threat to do so again, do you believe they should not be punished?
Ten oz Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 Interesting perspective. Locking up someone for something they might do in the future.Great! I never said you that. That isn't even a possible misreading of what I have said. I have not personally attacked, mocked, or otherwise demeaned any of your posts. I have done nothing to provoke such provocations. Intentionally misquoting my posts isn't appropriate and does nothing to further this conversation. So back to my previous question.Assuming we had a full proof method, if someone who robbed or killed is no longer a threat to do so again, do you believe they should not be punished? There is not a full proof method. You are using an impractical example. How does it speak to the real life application of law? The question is arbitrary. All crime is not treated the same. Misdemeanor assualt is different than felon assualt, justifiable homicide vs manslaughter, and etc, etc, etc.
MonDie Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 (edited) Interesting perspective. Locking up someone for something they might do in the future. It's called a psych ward. Though of course we can't lock you up (or kill you) just for being suspicious, for that would extend deterrence beyond the criminal realm, unnecessarily restricting our freedoms. Individuality and eccentricity would vanish. Edited January 16, 2015 by MonDie
zapatos Posted January 16, 2015 Posted January 16, 2015 (edited) I never said you that. That isn't even a possible misreading of what I have said. Sorry that you feel I am attacking or mocking or misquoting you, but I really don't think I am. I don't know how to read your comment any other way. So given that you believe the government should keep dangerous people off the streets, and that we should not be 'punishing' them, you seem to be saying that anyone who kills for a reason other than defense should be jailed for life, since they are a risk to do it again. Yes, dangerous people should be kept off the streets. There is not a full proof method. Doesn't matter if there is or not. You don't wish to answer the question. I'll drop it. Edited January 16, 2015 by zapatos
iNow Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 Perhaps a different approach should be taken with those who are psychopathic/sociopathic and unlikely to ever improve than with those who are otherwise neurotypical and have a decent likelihood of being rehabilitated and better integrated back into society?
overtone Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 None of the stuff about gun battles with terrorists, people likely to reoffend, or other side issues, pertains to the central issue: should agents of the State be allowed to kill citizens of that State in cold blood and with legal impunity, for any reason whatsoever? The mere statement of the situation points to the answer: of course not. Legal capital punishment is far too dangerous a tool in the hands of any State.
imatfaal Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 None of the stuff about gun battles with terrorists, people likely to reoffend, or other side issues, pertains to the central issue: should agents of the State be allowed to kill citizens of that State in cold blood and with legal impunity, for any reason whatsoever? The mere statement of the situation points to the answer: of course not. Legal capital punishment is far too dangerous a tool in the hands of any State. I agree with the phrasing of the question - and I agree with the answer; but too many (seemingly sentient) people disagree. The fact that capital punishment enjoys majority support - disquieting as this is - should make us revisit the argument; for when the question has been asked in a simple manner the free and not-so-free peoples of the world have regularly called for capital punishment. The EU has banned capital punishment, as have some other states and federations - but they are in a minority. Whilst I would like to agree with your assertion that the mere statement of the situation points to an abolition of capital punishment - it remains clear that in a significant proportion of the popultation the answer to the same question is "hang them high".
dimreepr Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) The loudest voice in the room is often the most listened to (due, in part, to the dunning/kruger effect); only education can counter that. Edited January 20, 2015 by dimreepr
zapatos Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 Why is it that the use of the death penalty crosses the line of acceptable punishment? I have no objection to society drawing the line wherever they wish, but I don't understand why people feel so strongly that the death penalty is somehow a punishment that no 'seemingly sentient' person would even consider, or how the death penalty is so outrageous that its mere consideration is laughable. Society has decided that people should be punished for their crimes, and the level of punishment can fall anywhere on a continuum depending upon the severity of the crime. The more egregious the crime, the more severe the punishment. Few people seem to have a problem with punishing a bank robber more severely than a bicycle thief. Punishment generally takes something away from the criminal. Either money in the form of fines for smaller crimes, or freedom for more serious crimes. Punishment generally increases in step with the severity of the crime. While people generally do not see anything wrong with minimal punishment for minimal crimes, and medium punishment for medium crimes, many people do not accept the idea of the maximum punishment (which I suppose is death) for the maximum crime. I understand that people are generally afraid of wrongly putting someone to death for a crime they did not commit, and it is not that attitude I am questioning. What I don't understand is why some people feel it is simply something beyond the bounds of what can even be considered. Why should the death penalty be strictly off the table, but locking someone up in a 10x6 cell for 60 years is not off the table? Why is the maximum penalty for the maximum crime unacceptable?
iNow Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 Killing another human is illegal because society considers it wrong and has codified it as such. How do we avoid hypocrisy and double standards (i.e. How do we maintain even a modicum of integrity and reinforce the core agreed upon message that killing is wrong) if we allow the state to act on that agreement by killing instead of choosing the equally available and effective option of lifelong incarceration?
zapatos Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 Grabbing someone off the street and locking them in a room against their will is illegal because society considers it wrong and has codified it as such. How do we avoid hypocrisy if we allow the state to act on that agreement by grabbing someone off the street and locking them in a room against their will? What we choose to be illegal are those types of things that are detrimental to the victim of the crime. Any type of punishment is also going to be detrimental to the person being punished. It is not possible to punish a criminal if we cannot do to them what we have determined cannot be done legally by them to others. We generally try to ensure the punishment fits the crime. If you cheat on your taxes and steal money from the government, you will likely have the government take money away from you. If you kidnap someone, you will likely be incarcerated yourself.
iNow Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 (edited) I like the argument you just made and respect how you addressed my post. Since you argued it so well, I don't have an immediate rebuttal, other than to say that my own feelings on the topic are these: The state can be wrong and mistakenly put innocent people to death. The state can also abuse such a power, and I've seen too many special interests and cronies take control of state levers to feel this should be a weapon available to them and at their disposal. There are no mulligans with the death penalty, no take-backs and, albeit flawed, incarceration at least allows us a method to correct inaccurate judgments should they be deemed so in the future. Even if what's given back to the convicted person is a life prorated relative to what they would have had absent the false conviction, it's still a life that state sanctioned death would have eliminated entirely as a possibility. Once dead, all options are off the table and errors can no longer be reversed. For those reasons, and also that I feel it's wrong to teach society that killing is wrong by killing those who do it, I am not a supporter of the death penalty. I think your rebuttal above was excellent though, so thank you. Edited January 21, 2015 by iNow
zapatos Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 Those are of course all good reasons why we should not have the death penalty, and I would add to that list, a run up to the actual execution that to most objective observers would appear to be state sanctioned torture. I think where I differ from some on this site is that if we could eliminate concerns such as the risk to the innocent, the cruel process, and the abuse by authority, that I would no longer find that I had an objective reason to oppose the death penalty.
iNow Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 Do you maintain that perspective even after factoring in the exorbitant costs associated with death row inmates relative to their non-death-row peers? The certainty you describe in no innocents being mistakenly included strikes me as well-intentioned but unrealistic, but the potential cost savings to all of us tax payers of eliminating the death penalty are measurable, massive, and real.
overtone Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 (edited) Why is it that the use of the death penalty crosses the line of acceptable punishment? Because it allows the government to bury its mistakes and crimes, and oppress its citizenry. The lesson of history is: Never let your government do that. Edited January 21, 2015 by overtone
zapatos Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 Do you maintain that perspective even after factoring in the exorbitant costs associated with death row inmates relative to their non-death-row peers? The certainty you describe in no innocents being mistakenly included strikes me as well-intentioned but unrealistic, but the potential cost savings to all of us tax payers of eliminating the death penalty are measurable, massive, and real. I do maintain that perspective even after factoring in the costs. Everything costs money, some things more than others. It costs more to incarcerate for twenty years than for one year, but if we deem the crime requires a penalty 20x greater then we bear the cost. And 'no innocents' being executed would certainly greatly reduce the number of executions possible although I'm not sure it would eliminate them altogether (e.g. I don't know all the details of the case and thus if this example would apply, but Timothy McVeigh clearly seems to have been guilty including his own admission and desire to be executed). But those are practical matters and kind of get away from the question I was raising. I agree that all of these factors should be considered when deciding whether or not to execute people. But I think all of these factors should also be considered when deciding whether or not in incarcerate someone for 20 years, or to fine them $10,000, or to impose any other punishment on them. What I don't understand is the apparent position of some that regardless of how well we can address cost, risk, abuse of power, or any other factor, that the death penalty is still an option that is verboten. It almost feels like a position taken from religion, that life is 'precious' or a 'gift' that we have no right to take. 1
Phi for All Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 What I don't understand is the apparent position of some that regardless of how well we can address cost, risk, abuse of power, or any other factor, that the death penalty is still an option that is verboten. It almost feels like a position taken from religion, that life is 'precious' or a 'gift' that we have no right to take. I don't need religion to tell me that we should treat life as precious (I don't know about the "gift" part, that implies a giver). I'd like to see the DP abolished so we can move away from the whole "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" garbage that Christianity was so happy to confuse people with. Our penal system revolves around business and making money at the expense of the taxpayers, who've been told repeatedly that the only alternative is lawlessness. We know it's stupid and counterproductive to punish someone by doing the very thing they're being punished for (can you imagine punching your child as punishment for getting into a fight?), but our fears of lawlessness overcome our reason.
zapatos Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 I don't need religion to tell me that we should treat life as precious (I don't know about the "gift" part, that implies a giver). What is it about 'preciousness' that makes life untouchable? Is it a spiritual thing? Is there some sort of objective quality you can assign to it?
Delta1212 Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 Zapatos, would you consider having all of your limbs amputated, your tongue removed, your eardrums ruptured, and your eyes put out to be more or less of a punishment than execution?
zapatos Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 Zapatos, would you consider having all of your limbs amputated, your tongue removed, your eardrums ruptured, and your eyes put out to be more or less of a punishment than execution? Um, I guess I would consider that to be a greater punishment than execution.
MigL Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 Not wanting to speak for Zapatos as he makes an excellent argument on his own. But of your examples, one is punishment, or simply retribution through torture, while the other is the removal of a dangerous offender from society so that he/she will never be one again. Totally different, in intent as well.
iNow Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 (edited) Moral issues and ethics aside, it costs much more than people seem to realize and I believe that money could be better spent in other ways (especially since we can and very frequently do successfully incarcerate for life at significantly lower costs per inmate). http://www.law.columbia.edu/law_school/communications/reports/summer06/capitalpunish Each execution can cost between $2.5 million and $5 million. <snip> The burden of these costs is borne by local governments, often diverting precious resources not only from police, but from health care, infrastructure, and education, or forcing counties to borrow money or raise taxes. Edited January 21, 2015 by iNow
Delta1212 Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 Um, I guess I would consider that to be a greater punishment than execution. So if we've now established that capital punishment is not necessarily the maximum punishment, then we need to adjust what "maximum punishment for maximum crime" entails. Would you find putting the afore described punishment, or a potentially harsher one if such could be devised, on the table for people convicted of a "maximum crime" to be acceptable?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now