Do you believe the death penalty is unethical?

[Dlouro]

I'm happy to live in the country that was the first to abolish death penalty for political crimes and the third for common crimes. Our highest punition is 25 years even for murder. The system works , we have a low rate of violent crimes.

Of course sometimes we have a crime so horrible that we feel the punition is not good enough but those are the exceptions.

Only a violent society needs a violent punition. Or dictatorships.

The way I see it death penalty is final and if the wrong person is killed there's no way to compensate.

I'm against death penalty.

[disarray]

I'm happy to live in the country that was the first to abolish death penalty for political crimes and the third for common crimes. Our highest punition is 25 years even for murder. The system works , we have a low rate of violent crimes.
Of course sometimes we have a crime so horrible that we feel the punition is not good enough but those are the exceptions.
Only a violent society needs a violent punition. Or dictatorships.
The way I see it death penalty is final and if the wrong person is killed there's no way to compensate.
I'm against death penalty.

 

Yes, the use of capital punishment/death penalty has certainly diminished as time goes by, and this suggests that abolishing it is an advancement of some sort:

 

An increase in human rights and a decrease in both torture and capital punishment occurred with the fall of the Nazis, the dissolution of the USSR, and the abandonment of Apartheid in S. Africa.

 

The notion that death is some ultimate punishment arose, in part, over the centuries because death was often preceded by various forms of torture. Even in "modern times" prisoners were routinely beaten in the U.S. (Alcatraz), (e.g., with blackjacks) and place in solitary confinement for up to 22 months, despite Federal law mandating a maximum of 19 days (which is still rather horrific).

 

(By the way, a typical cell in Alcatraz measured 9 feet by 5 feet and 7 feet high (45 sq feet) with at least 2 occupants, and even today, the average cell is around 6 x 9 feet (54 sq ft) with two occupants, even though the American Correctional Association standards call for a minimum of 70 square feet in single cell housing! So even life imprisonment should not, in reality, be seen as some sort of less punitive option than death. Indeed, even if we claim we are just trying to isolate them from society, such treatment can hardly be seen as humane.)

 

Given that "the great majority of statistical comparisons indicate that the presence or absence of capital punishment does not visibly influence the rate of homicide," one wonders why anyone would wish to advocate its use. Indeed, "an overwhelming majority among America's leading criminologists believe that capital punishment does not contribute to lower rates of homicide." https://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/teaching_aids/.../JLpaper.pdf

 

Perhaps taking away a person’s life gives the most satisfaction to some atavistic desire to be avenged. Certainly when listens to the relatives of someone who has been brutally killed, for example, one often hears heated rhetoric that reflects the need to dole out punishment and get revenge. Whether people or their representatives base their voting choices on such raw emotions when it comes to determining whether the death penalty is legal is an interesting question. Since there can be no consensus as to whether the death penalty is "ethical," given the aforementioned abundance (or plethora) of ethical frameworks held by citizens who determine what is ethical and what is not, I think that it is worthwhile examining the motives of those who are in favor or against it.

Edited July 21, 2016 by disarray

[Gilga-flesh]

After adding death sentence to codex.

It's just a matter of time when this punishment will be used to kill "traitors", anyone who is upset at the government,

which means killing the all democratic/non-democratic opposition.

 

If a country becomes a dictatorship they can do whatever they want regardless whether it was legal before. Aside from this, there are always ways to kill 'traitors' if you really want it. Even in countries without death penalty. That's why, when your country becomes a dictatorship, it's game over as far as ethics and legality issues are concerned. They people who determine what is legal ARE now the criminals and they don't need your or the public's approval at large in order to create their law.

 

 

Indeed.

 

Brilliant argumentation. If you don't have anything to say, don't.

I'm happy to live in the country that was the first to abolish death penalty for political crimes and the third for common crimes. Our highest punition is 25 years even for murder. The system works , we have a low rate of violent crimes.

Of course sometimes we have a crime so horrible that we feel the punition is not good enough but those are the exceptions.

Only a violent society needs a violent punition. Or dictatorships.

...

 

My country doesn't have death penalty either. But does the system work BECAUSE of the lack of death penalty and low max. sentencing? Or is the causality reversed? My impression is that societies tend to loose death penalty when they become more pacified. And call for death penalty increases when violence/terrorism goes up.

Last Resort - A final course of action, used only when all else has failed

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/last-resort

 

...

 

 

The Death Penalty is not a last resort. It is retribution for an offense.

...

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/last%20resort

 

When nothing else works. In the opinion of lawmakers in countries like the USA, nothing less than death penalty would work to punish the very worst criminals sufficiently. It's the maximum punishment available for the worst crimes possible.

Edited July 21, 2016 by Gilga-flesh

[disarray]

 

My country doesn't have death penalty either. But does the system work BECAUSE of the lack of death penalty and low max. sentencing? Or is the causality reversed?

 

Yes, one has to distinguish between causality, association, and reverse causality, and this is a good example of it.

 

I am particularly interested in the idea that 25 years mighty be sufficient, given the low crime rate in the country that has that as a maximum.

 

Perhaps the idea that we need to give a 20 year old murderer a life sentence is in part based on the idea that people who murder are basically evil, and that such evil will never go away, and thus the murderer will never change and will always want to murder again. In reality, I suspect that most murderers are not likely to murder again, but the murder they commit is a one-off event based on revenge, jealousy, rage, or whatever temporary emotion related to some situation that will never be repeated in their lifetime. Indeed, serial killings account for no more than 1 percent of all murders committed in the U.S. Hence, the murder rate in a country that has a maximum penalty of 25 years would be much the same as the rate in a country that had a life sentence or death penalty.

 

Rapists, however, have a much higher rate of recidivism, perhaps around 30%, but again, one wonders what percent would repeat after 25 years in prison....not because time in prison had reformed them, but, more likely that they no longer have the motives and desires for raping that they once had.

 

"In some countries, drinking and driving is punishable by death. A first time offense in El Salvador leads to execution by firing squad, while a second offense in Bulgaria also leads to execution" though in El Salvador the usual sentence for rape is 6 to 10 years, with 'women not reporting incidents of rape for reasons including "ineffective and unsupportive responses by authorities toward victims, fear of publicity, and a perception among victims that cases were unlikely to be prosecuted'. http://www.refworld.org/docid/560b8b294.html

 

El Salvador authorities apparently do not distinguish between abortion and miscarriage, and in both cases hold the woman responsible for what they see as murder, with many women who miscarry women imprisoned for miscarriages usually serving sentences of up to 40 years. Even last year, "abortion – or miscarriages treated as suspected abortions – can be regarded as murder, which can carry a 40-year sentence."

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/dec/17/el-salvador-anti-abortion-law-premature-birth-miscarriage-attempted-murder

 

Why so harsh to women? "Although Pope Francis said this year [2015] that priests have the capacity to pardon women who have abortions, it will take a long time to shift attitudes in El Salvador. Polls show public opinion is strongly against any change in the law even in cases of incestuous rape of minors."

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/dec/17/el-salvador-anti-abortion-law-premature-birth-miscarriage-attempted-murder

 

As for murder, El Salvador is described as the murder capital of the world: "According to new figures produced by the Institute of Legal Medicine in El Salvador, there were 6,656 killings in the country last year. That translates into a national homicide rate of almost 116 per 100,000, more than 17 times the global average."

 

What is to be done? "Getting El Salvador's homicide problem under control requires more than...improved prison conditions. It also demands preventive measures that curb family disruption and protect the most vulnerable members of society. The country's elite need to avoid the temptation to impose stiffer penalties and throw more people in jail. If they want to reduce crime, they should improve the lives and opportunities of working families and unsupervised youth. (Other steps being taken include offering credit to households headed by women, refurbishing community centers and upgrading slum areas, and regulating drug trafficking.

 

In short, rather than focusing on existing conceptions of guilt and punishment in societies such as El Salvador, it seems that focusing on defusing situations likely to cause violence, rehabilitating offenders at a young age, and changing archaic attitudes are more likely to be productive.

Edited July 21, 2016 by disarray

[Ten oz]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/last%20resort

 

When nothing else works. In the opinion of lawmakers in countries like the USA, nothing less than death penalty would work to punish the very worst criminals sufficiently. It's the maximum punishment available for the worst crimes possible.

Exactly, I don't want my Gov't "punishing" its citizens. I want my gov't protecting citizens. We should be locking people up when they are dangerous to protect society from them. Punishment is not a business I think the Gov't needs to be in.

[disarray]

Exactly, I don't want my Gov't "punishing" its citizens. I want my gov't protecting citizens. We should be locking people up when they are dangerous to protect society from them. Punishment is not a business I think the Gov't needs to be in.

 

Serious question:

In what ways might one argue that a non-punitive view of incarceration is consistent with the supposed secular (as opposed to religious) nature of the constitution of the U.S.

 

Casual question:

What would a non-punitive parenting style look like?

Edited July 21, 2016 by disarray

[Raider5678]

Exactly, I don't want my Gov't "punishing" its citizens. I want my gov't protecting citizens. We should be locking people up when they are dangerous to protect society from them. Punishment is not a business I think the Gov't needs to be in.

Oh yeah, cause this is gunna work well. The guy who robs a bank, by does it peacefully. No sentence, because he's not a danger. The dude who stalks a girl. No punishment, he's not a danger, well, at least you can't prove he is. The man who tortures animals for his pleasure. No punishment, he's not a danger! Yeah. I can definitely tell you really thought about how this would work. And who's gonna go into the punishment business? If the governments not in it, regulations will drop for sure. The poor will be punished and the rich will not. Yep. That's the kind of country I want to live in, don't you?

[disarray]

Oh yeah, cause this is gunna work well. The guy who robs a bank, by does it peacefully. No sentence, because he's not a danger. The dude who stalks a girl. No punishment, he's not a danger, well, at least you can't prove he is. The man who tortures animals for his pleasure. No punishment, he's not a danger! Yeah. I can definitely tell you really thought about how this would work. And who's gonna go into the punishment business? If the governments not in it, regulations will drop for sure. The poor will be punished and the rich will not. Yep. That's the kind of country I want to live in, don't you?

 

• Bank issue: Losing your money, whether done at the point of a gun or by manipulating the stock market is still a danger as far as I am concerned....semantic red herring.
• Stalking: Again, the law deals with gray areas by using concepts such as imminent danger, probable cause, degree of intent, etc. ...so another semantic red herring.
• Torturing animals: Nowadays we tend to include animals in our definition of society, e.g., 'you hurt my dog, I hurt you' attitude as if they are part of family, and indeed, there can be serious legal sanctions against killing even your own dog. Ironically we don't blink an eye when it comes to slaughtering millions of animals to feed ourselves.
• Regulations: There is no need for regulations to be seen as punishments, so am not sure what your point is. Regulating the stock market, for example, is still keeping stockholders out of financial danger. Danger need not be just hitting someone with a club.

 

That said, I agree that our government routinely uses punishment in all walks of life, e.g., the behavioral conditioning associated with getting a speeding ticket, parents being allowed to hit their children as they see fit in many states, religious leaders warning people that they might be punished in hell if they don't toe the line, etc. .

 

So the question then becomes whether prison sentences are effective "positive punishment"...e.g., does jailing a woman in El Salvador for several months for having a miscarriage serve to prevent such "behavior" in the future? I would suggest not. But maybe sentencing someone to 5 years in prison for robbing a gas station would make him think twice before doing it again (but then we might ask if a year in jail would have served the same purpose just as well).

 

When it comes to life in prison or the death penalty, there is no rehabilitation connected with the positive punishment, since we will never know if the person would ever do it again. We can hardly say to someone in prison on their death bed as they take their last few breaths, "I betcha won't shoot anyone else again now that you have learned what happens to people who kill".. So in that sense, the death penalty or even life in prison seems like a rather pointless exercise in punishment, so that one can only conclude that, apart from keeping someone off the streets, the whole point is to get revenge.

(just my two cents worth)

Edited July 21, 2016 by disarray

[Gilga-flesh]

Exactly, I don't want my Gov't "punishing" its citizens. I want my gov't protecting citizens. We should be locking people up when they are dangerous to protect society from them. Punishment is not a business I think the Gov't needs to be in.

 

How about other punitive measures such as fines. What do you think of these?

Edited July 21, 2016 by Gilga-flesh

[dimreepr]

Brilliant argumentation. If you don't have anything to say, don't.

 

 

I simply agreed that those arguments make no sense, for instance, why does your supposition without evidence take priority over mine?

 

I, at least, explained why my supposition lacks evidence, whilst you just continue to insist yours is valid and mine is made up (hence the double face-palms).

 

 

I look forward to the citations, you'll no doubt provide now, or at least an explanation as to why you can't provide them.

 

 

BTW I live in a society that values freedom of speech, or would you deny me that?

 

Serious question:

In what ways might one argue that a non-punitive view of incarceration is consistent with the supposed secular (as opposed to religious) nature of the constitution of the U.S.

 

Casual question:

What would a non-punitive parenting style look like?

 

 

Good concise questions +1, but that's not his point.

Edited July 21, 2016 by dimreepr

[disarray]

 

 

Good concise questions +1, but that's not his point.

 

Ten oz, on 21 Jul 2016 - 04:59 AM, said:

Exactly, I don't want my Gov't "punishing" its citizens. I want my gov't protecting citizens. We should be locking people up when they are dangerous to protect society from them. Punishment is not a business I think the Gov't needs to be in.

 

I replied:

 

In what ways might one argue that a non-punitive view of incarceration is consistent with the supposed secular (as opposed to religious) nature of the constitution of the U.S.

I responded to Ten Oz’s remark directly by agreeing that the Government should not be punishing citizens. Indeed, I suspected that the U.S. Government might incorporate such an anti-punishing attitude in the Constitution, and thus posed the question. Indeed, the Constitution does have the Eighth Amendment as the part of the United States Bill of Rights prohibiting the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment.

(My casual question about parents was just an aside, of course).

 

So how am I not addressing his point?

[swansont]

 

A last resort, yes. But current death penalty isn't the first or preferred option. It is the last.

 

 

Patently false. "Last option" means all other options have been tried. Has incarceration worked?

 

" 241 out of the 385 death row inmates in India are first-time offenders. "

http://vinsonias.com/DynImg/a731d165-4d8d-49af-8d4e-395d41777954.pdf

 

if you are a first-time offender, then less drastic options have not been tried.

 

 

In the US, stats on death row inmates:

• 8.6% of inmates had a prior homicide conviction.
• 65.7% had prior felony convictions.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts?gclid=CjwKEAjw5cG8BRDQj_CNh9nwxTUSJAAHdX3fUxCDFfQxTtkqba5UF0TUlnPqAKJ-5M25qJhtHYJ6EhoC_7fw_wcB

 

Apparently, the death penalty is not the last option being sought.

 

 

——

And, since this has come up before, just as a reference (so I don't lose the link):

"Since 1973, more than 150 people have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence. (Staff Report, House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil & Constitutional Rights, 1993, with updates from DPIC)"

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf

Exactly, I don't want my Gov't "punishing" its citizens. I want my gov't protecting citizens. We should be locking people up when they are dangerous to protect society from them. Punishment is not a business I think the Gov't needs to be in.

 

 

That speaks to the reasoning behind prisons: punishment, rehabilitation, public safety, etc. (you can pick more than one)

 

 

 

But what floors me is the suggestion/implication that's popped up in this thread that not killing someone needs some sort of justification. To me the burden is on those calling for the death penalty to present clear reasoning why other measures are insufficient, that how the death penalty respects the rights of the people (mainly to not be killed by their government if they are innocent, but others as well)

[dimreepr]

 

 

 

Ten oz, on 21 Jul 2016 - 04:59 AM, said:

Exactly, I don't want my Gov't "punishing" its citizens. I want my gov't protecting citizens. We should be locking people up when they are dangerous to protect society from them. Punishment is not a business I think the Gov't needs to be in.

 

I replied:

 

In what ways might one argue that a non-punitive view of incarceration is consistent with the supposed secular (as opposed to religious) nature of the constitution of the U.S.

I responded to Ten Oz’s remark directly by agreeing that the Government should not be punishing citizens. Indeed, I suspected that the U.S. Government might incorporate such an anti-punishing attitude in the Constitution, and thus posed the question. Indeed, the Constitution does have the Eighth Amendment as the part of the United States Bill of Rights prohibiting the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment.

(My casual question about parents was just an aside, of course).

 

So how am I not addressing his point?

 

 

 

Punishment and justice can be one and the same; punishment with an unbalanced consequence is revenge.

It's the balance of action and consequence that provides justice.

[disarray]

 

 

Punishment and justice can be one and the same; punishment with an unbalanced consequence is revenge.

 

It's the balance of action and consequence that provides justice.

Ok, well you haven't answered the question as to why you thought I was not addressing the point made by Ten Oz, as I clearly showed that I was.

 

I don't know where you are getting your definitions. Can you cite any evidence to support the notion that this is the or even "a" meaning of justice?

 

Of course, one hears the dictum that the consequence should fit the wrongdoing, or that the punishment should fit the crime. Indeed, that is where the 8th Amendment comes in, one should not chop off a person's hand for stealing a loaf of bread, as was practiced both in the Middle East as well as Britain (as recently as about a little over a century ago as I recall).

 

But the difference between punishment and revenge is not in the magnitude of the consequences doled out to the transgressor, it is the motive behind the consequences. If a shopkeeper chops off the hand of a starving little London boy, he might feel sorry for the boy, but still think (owing to the social beliefs of the time about punishment) that cutting off his hand is the best way to discourage him from stealing another loaf. On the other hand, an vindictive shopkeeper might not be thinking so much about reforming the boy as to just venting his anger, particularly if the boy ate a bit of the bread so that it couldn't be sold...as if the shopkeeper was meting out an eye for an eye type of vengeful justice.

 

But the distinction between punishment and revenge. in practice, often times is not that great, I would suggest. Justice, in terms of the degree of sanctions and doling out consequences for ones actions is a matter of personal and cultural opinion....in ancient societies and even in some socieites today it is seen as quite acceptable and reasonable to stone a full grown woman to death for such minor things as going out with a man without parental permission. So again, the magnitude of the sanction has nothing to do with justice.

 

And this seems to be the problem with the OT, as it reflects (as does the Quran) a vindictive sort of justice that was prevalent in ancient times, and it is this sort of vindictiveness that people such as Stephen Pinker (The Blank Slate) says that we need to continue to eradicate if we are to evolve as a modern society.

Edited July 21, 2016 by disarray

[Gilga-flesh]

 

Patently false. "Last option" means all other options have been tried. Has incarceration worked?

 

It seems to depend on the definition of last resort you use. If you feel other punishments/measures must first be used, does that mean that you would support death penalty for repeat criminals (assuming crime of sufficient magnitude) that do not seem to be rehabilitable?

[dimreepr]

 

I don't know where you are getting your definitions. Can you cite any evidence to support the notion that this is the or even "a" meaning of justice?

 

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice

"Justice is the legal or philosophical theory by which fairness is administered"

[disarray]

 

It seems to depend on the definition of last resort you use. If you feel other punishments/measures must first be used, does that mean that you would support death penalty for repeat criminals (assuming crime of sufficient magnitude) that do not seem to be rehabilitable?

If I may interject, I don't see what difference it makes whether other punishments/measures have (or should) be used. If a guy goes in and out of prison and rehabilitation programs several times and continues to rob gas stations to support his heroin addiction, should we just increase prison terms (under the assumption that doing so would make any difference) or try a different form of rehabilitation, or should we at some point just throw our arms up in the air and say, "Gosh, we tried everything, but you are incorrigible, so we are forced to take your life." I don't understand this line of reasoning...am I missing something?

 

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice

"Justice is the legal or philosophical theory by which fairness is administered"

Ah, but how does this definition then define fairness...I believe Socrates had a field day with this question (Plato's Republic), where he shows that pretty much any definition is arbitrary and open to exceptions.

 

Indeed, the next sentence in Wikipedia after the one you quote is that "The concept of justice differs in every culture." I think it fair to conclude then, that the concept of fairness likewise varies. Indeed, further down in the Wiki article it clarifies what it means by "Fairness" by pointing out that the concept typically deals with distribution:

"we would endorse Rawls's two principles of justice: Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all....According to meritocratic theories, goods, especially wealth and social status, should be distributed to match individual merit, which is usually understood as some combination of talent and hard work.

 

So I am not sure how this sort of "fairness," as explained in the wiki article has anything to do with the propriety of the "punishment fitting the crime" or that punishment with an unbalanced consequence is revenge.

 

I would agree, however, as I pointed out before, that relatives of victims (e.g., of a murdered child) tend to demand the most severe punishment that comes to mind (often the death penalty), which, to the court (given perhaps mitigating circumstances) sees such a demand as excessive, coming as it were, from a person who is severely distraught. In practice, there may be some correlation, but I fail to see that this provides us with a definition that suggests that justice is based on reasonable punishments and revenge is based on unreasonable punishments.

Edited July 21, 2016 by disarray

[dimreepr]

 

So I am not sure how this sort of "fairness," as explained in the wiki article has anything to do with the propriety of the "punishment fitting the crime" or that punishment with an unbalanced consequence is revenge.

 

 

 

 

If I may interject, I don't see what difference it makes whether other punishments/measures have (or should) be used. If a guy goes in and out of prison and rehabilitation programs several times and continues to rob gas stations to support his heroin addiction, should we just increase prison terms (under the assumption that doing so would make any difference) or try a different form of rehabilitation, or should we at some point just throw our arms up in the air and say, "Gosh, we tried everything, but you are incorrigible, so we are forced to take your life." I don't understand this line of reasoning...am I missing something?

 

 

Ah, but how does this definition then define fairness...I believe Socrates had a field day with this question (Plato's Republic), where he shows that pretty much any definition is arbitrary and open to exceptions.

 

Indeed, the next sentence in Wikipedia after the one you quote is that "The concept of justice differs in every culture." I think it fair to conclude then, that the concept of fairness likewise varies. Indeed, further down in the Wiki article it clarifies what it means by "Fairness" by pointing out that the concept typically deals with distribution:

"we would endorse Rawls's two principles of justice: Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all....According to meritocratic theories, goods, especially wealth and social status, should be distributed to match individual merit, which is usually understood as some combination of talent and hard work.

 

So I am not sure how this sort of "fairness," as explained in the wiki article has anything to do with the propriety of the "punishment fitting the crime" or that punishment with an unbalanced consequence is revenge.

 

I would agree, however, as I pointed out before, that relatives of victims (e.g., of a murdered child) tend to demand the most severe punishment that comes to mind (often the death penalty), which, to the court (given perhaps mitigating circumstances) sees such a demand as excessive, coming as it were, from a person who is severely distraught. In practice, there may be some correlation, but I fail to see that this provides us with a definition that suggests that justice is based on reasonable punishments and revenge is based on unreasonable punishments.

 

 

 

If all you want, is to be correct in your own mind, then have at it.

Edited July 21, 2016 by dimreepr

[disarray]

Dimreepr

 

I gather that the your purpose in posting the clip is to illustrate that punishments are dealt out unfairly to minority groups such as African Americans.

 

I agree that justice is supposed to be blind, though this pertains to weighing the evidence (as in the scales of justice).

 

I agree that justice should be impartial, as in giving the same punishments to people regardless of race, religion, etc.

 

Nevertheless, I maintain that what is a reasonable and just/fair punishment is a matter of individual and cultural opinion, so that one cannot at some point say that

justice is or is not taking place in a country that stones a woman to death for adultery or is or is not taking place in a country where someone who is arrested for a DUI is given the death penalty, etc., regardless of whether it is the first time offense or not.

Edited July 21, 2016 by disarray

[dimreepr]

The culture that suggest's stoning a woman is fair, is long gone; how about we talk about now?

If I smoke a fat one, is it fair I spend time in prison?

[disarray]

The culture that suggest's stoning a woman is fair, is long gone; how about we talk about now?

Well, whether it is long gone or not does not detract from my point about morality, ethics, and justice being culturally relative.

 

But, before I do a little research, are you sure that the days when people think that stoning a woman for such things as adultery is fair and reasonable are long gone?

Ok, I feel like you are feeding me straight lines here, as they say, but here are just three out of any number of articles, complete with photos/video:

 

2015: Muslims Butcher Woman By Crushing Her To Death With Giant Rocks As She Screams In Agony for eloping after she was married to someone against her will. http://shoebat.com/2015/11/23/video-muslims-butcher-woman-by-crushing-her-to-death-with-giant-rocks/

 

2013: Woman being stoned to death somewhere in Africa. Video at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=176_1364022789

 

2016: Two teenage girls are stoned to death by ISIS after they were found in a house with two men. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3465227/Two-teenage-girls-stoned-death-ISIS-house-two-men-flogged-50-times.html

 

But yes, if one studies the culture and looks at interviews of people involved, it is obvious that those who stone women nowadays firmly believe that the are serving justice and that the women deserve torture and/or the death penalty for what people in other countries might consider to be common events that are no big deal.

 

As for drugs, again, depends where you are: Iranian pair face death penalty after third alcohol offence

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/25/iranian-pair-death-penalty-alcohol

Edited July 21, 2016 by disarray

[Gilga-flesh]

 

I simply agreed that those arguments make no sense, for instance, why does your supposition without evidence take priority over mine?

 

I, at least, explained why my supposition lacks evidence, whilst you just continue to insist yours is valid and mine is made up (hence the double face-palms).

 

 

I look forward to the citations, you'll no doubt provide now, or at least an explanation as to why you can't provide them.

 

 

BTW I live in a society that values freedom of speech, or would you deny me that?

 

 

Where to start.

 

Let's summarize our discussion for the sake of sanity and late arrivals.

 

"If death penalty is abolished the alternative is life in prison. Because these are the worst of the worst. Rehabilitation isn't really an issue if you plan to keep someone locked up in a cage forever."

0) I state the "worst of the worst" of criminals can't be released.

 

As for your extreme example, of course their will always be some people considered to dangerous to be released, but, that said, 99% of the prison population in any given country is rehabilitatable.

1) You agree with me. You also claim that 99% of criminals can be rehabilitated.

 

No and I'm not going to look because it was meant as a counterpoint to the extreme example suggested by Gilga-flesh, as in 99% of any prison population won't meet of his example.

2) You refuse to back up your claim because it was meant as a counterpoint. And you can make those up apparently. You also no longer agree to my point that the worst criminals can't be released even though you already agreed to it a post earlier.

 

Except ofcourse, my "extreme example" actually exists many times over and yours is completely made up.

3) I point out the obvious. The worst of the worst of criminals exist. But 99% of criminals have not been rehabilitated, nor is there evidence that they can be.

 

4) You disagree but lose the ability to use language. I especially like how you decided to post the same smiley twice.

 

"Oh, you disagree that your statement that 99% of criminals can be rehabilitated is made up? Strange cause you admitted it yourself just a few posts later. The example you claim as extreme is, unfortunately, not even remotely exceptional."

5) I'm confused and try to find out what's going on + I make a large reasoning about how society badly combines attempts to punish criminals and protect society.

 

"Indeed."

6) You post a single word while deliberately quoting my phrase "This does not make sense" out of context. I guess it's better than a couple of smileys. Unfortunately there is still no indication of what part you disagree with, let alone an explanation as to why.

 

"Brilliant argumentation. If you don't have anything to say, don't."

7) I point out that you are not saying anything of worth. At all.

 

"I, at least, explained why my supposition lacks evidence, whilst you just continue to insist yours is valid and mine is made up (hence the double face-palms).I look forward to the citations, you'll no doubt provide now, or at least an explanation as to why you can't provide them. BTW I live in a society that values freedom of speech, or would you deny me that?"

8) You again disagree with me and your former self. Apparently you no longer think that there are criminals who shouldn't be released. You demand scientific evidence for their existence and claim I'm oppressing your freedom of speech by exercising my own freedom of speech to tell you to put more meaning in your speech.

9) I get confused.

Perhaps you can help me and answer the questions you left open. Why did you change your mind? What exactly do you disagree with? Do you really want me to find research to prove that some criminals are too dangerous to be released? Even though you already agreed with it? I did post this link a few posts before our discussion: http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/135292/170-convicted-rapists-reoffend-after-released-from-prison I would think that would suffice.

Edited July 21, 2016 by Gilga-flesh

[dimreepr]

The philosophical argument of fairness, doesn't change according to culture, it's simply the balance of action verses consequence within a culture.

 

If that culture is formed by a limited number of participants, for instance a tribe, then "an eye for an eye" makes sense; in a culture that consists of a large number then "an eye for an eye" can only blind.

 

Where to start.

 

Let's summarize our discussion for the sake of sanity and late arrivals.

 

"If death penalty is abolished the alternative is life in prison. Because these are the worst of the worst. Rehabilitation isn't really an issue if you plan to keep someone locked up in a cage forever."

0) I state the "worst of the worst" of criminals can't be released.

 

As for your extreme example, of course their will always be some people considered to dangerous to be released, but, that said, 99% of the prison population in any given country is rehabilitatable.

1) You agree with me. You also claim that 99% of criminals can be rehabilitated.

 

No and I'm not going to look because it was meant as a counterpoint to the extreme example suggested by Gilga-flesh, as in 99% of any prison population won't meet of his example.

2) You refuse to back up your claim because it was meant as a counterpoint. And you can make those up apparently. You also no longer agree to my point that the worst criminals can't be released even though you already agreed to it a post earlier.

 

Except ofcourse, my "extreme example" actually exists many times over and yours is completely made up.

3) I point out the obvious. The worst of the worst of criminals exist. But 99% of criminals have not been rehabilitated, nor is there evidence that they can be.

 

4) You disagree but lose the ability to use language. I especially like how you decided to post the same smiley twice.

 

"Oh, you disagree that your statement that 99% of criminals can be rehabilitated is made up? Strange cause you admitted it yourself just a few posts later. The example you claim as extreme is, unfortunately, not even remotely exceptional."

5) I'm confused and try to find out what's going on + I make a large reasoning about how society badly combines attempts to punish criminals and protect society.

 

"Indeed."

6) You post a single word while deliberately quoting my phrase "This does not make sense" out of context. I guess it's better than a couple of smileys. Unfortunately there is still no indication of what part you disagree with, let alone an explanation as to why.

 

"Brilliant argumentation. If you don't have anything to say, don't."

7) I point out that you are not saying anything of worth. At all.

 

"I, at least, explained why my supposition lacks evidence, whilst you just continue to insist yours is valid and mine is made up (hence the double face-palms).I look forward to the citations, you'll no doubt provide now, or at least an explanation as to why you can't provide them. BTW I live in a society that values freedom of speech, or would you deny me that?"

 

8) You disagree with me and your former self. Again. Apparently you no longer think that there are criminals who shouldn't be released. You demand scientific evidence for their existence and claim I'm oppressing your freedom of speech by exercising my own freedom of speech to tell you to put more meaning in your speech.

9) I get confused.

Perhaps you can help me and answer the questions you left open. Why did you change your mind? What exactly do you disagree with? Do you really want me to find research to prove that some criminals are too dangerous to be released? Even though you already agreed with it? I did post this link a few posts before our discussion: http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/135292/170-convicted-rapists-reoffend-after-released-from-prison I would think that would suffice. Still can't believe you really needed evidence though.

"No and I'm not going to look because it was meant as a counterpoint to the extreme example suggested by Gilga-flesh, as in 99% of any prison population won't meet of his example."

 

 

Try again.

[disarray]

The philosophical argument of fairness, doesn't change according to culture, it's simply the balance of action verses consequence within a culture.

 

If that culture is formed by a limited number of participants, for instance a tribe, then "an eye for an eye" makes sense; in a culture that consists of a large number then "an eye for an eye" can only blind.

 

So you agree that what is just and fair can vary from culture to culture and perhaps individual to individual.. rather arbitrary don't you think. And which is it, the culture decides what is fair, or the individual... and what if there are mixed opinions within the culture, e.g., on the issue of abortion, with variants such as incest, rape, safety of mother.

 

And what happens to the idea of justice if the law in a given state is changed from one year to the next, or people in a given town reject state law on abortion and pass laws of their own against the state law.

 

So your definition is rather vague to begin with. Really, the only thing that makes sense is that we get back to the idea that justice be distributed equally and impartially within a given culture, not the severity of the punishment. Again, what evidence other than your own (say, for example, a different wiki article) supports your definition?

 

Gilga: I see your mind is sharp..I would not be capable, or couldn't be bothered pointing out such a litany of inconsistencies.

Edited July 21, 2016 by disarray

[Gilga-flesh]

 

 

 

If I may interject, I don't see what difference it makes whether other punishments/measures have (or should) be used. If a guy goes in and out of prison and rehabilitation programs several times and continues to rob gas stations to support his heroin addiction, should we just increase prison terms (under the assumption that doing so would make any difference) or try a different form of rehabilitation, or should we at some point just throw our arms up in the air and say, "Gosh, we tried everything, but you are incorrigible, so we are forced to take your life." I don't understand this line of reasoning...am I missing something?

 

 

Possibly you missed the post I responded to? It was this one:

 

Patently false. "Last option" means all other options have been tried. Has incarceration worked?

 

Someone remarked how death penalty should be a last resort measurement. Which I thought it already was. So we got in an unfortunate linguistic discussion about the term last resort. Apparently people think it means that you should first try out other courses of actions before the last resort action become acceptable.

 

Which of course means that they do think death penalty is acceptable as long as other courses have failed. Ergo repeat criminals.

Edited July 21, 2016 by Gilga-flesh