Death Penalty

[alanschu]

I have no option but to thank those of you who've said clearly that you prefer to accept innocent victims of criminals before innocent victims of justice. That is a value statement, and not entirely debateable. But it is useful to know. I would suggest, however, that making that statement attacks the absolute foundations of state administered justice. We surrender our ability to protect ourselves to the state as part of the overall social contract. I would argue that it is the most fundamental part of that social contract, because it deals with our physical existence. If the state fails to protect us from those who withdraw from the contract then the contract is void and the state collapses.

 

 

Executing people doesn't protect us from those who withdraw from the social contract though.

 

How can you fail to be protected from someone who is dead? I'd say being dead put a spanner in most criminal enterprises. Except possibly necrophilia.

 

How are you any less protected from that same person if he was in prison for life?

 

 

The death penalty is not a deterrence. Murders still occur, often times at a higher rate than places where the death penalty does not exist (I'll be nice and assume that there's other confounding variables that explain this).

 

The only way you can justify that the execution of a murderer will protect others from being harmed by the murderer is if you assume that the murderer will be a repeat offender. What is the recidivism rate for repeat murders? The best I can find is recidivism rate for murderers, but that just means they have returned the jail for any reason (not necessarily murder).

[Walsingham]

OK. A few at once...

 

213374U, I apologise if I wasn't clear. But I don't know if you're simply objecting to the notion of moral authority.

 

Keeping someone in jail for life could be thought of as good because it's horrendous, or it allows for them being innocent and the case being reversed. But you can't have BOTH those points. Either its as bad as dying, or it is a quiet place where you wait to have your innocence proven.

 

Alanschu, I take your point about recidivism. Clearly many murderers (as John Mortimer observed) are quite calm since they've got rid of the one person who was really annoying them. We are discussing serious violent repeat offenders. Multiple rapists, multiple murderers or attempted murderers. People who we can have little confidence in rehabilitation.

 

Obviously I accept that permanent incarceration would protect society. But I do feel it is fair to point out and consider the immense drain on public funds which incarceration causes. Yet again, I point out that we are discussing extreme cases. I ask where there seems no serious doubt regarding guilt, and where the offender is a permanent threat, what is the purpose of keeping them at 'Her Majesty's Pleasure'?

[alanschu]

The only way you would really be able to save money would be to expedite the process through until execution, which is a condition I am not comfortable with. Leaving such decisions to a system that is run by fallible humans means that'd I'd prefer that there be no subjectivity regarding whether or not there is serious doubt regarding guilt or whether or not the offender is a permanent threat. Certainly not with an express lane.

 

 

I do know that prosecutors/judges can also err on the side of caution in a more lenient way. The death penalty IS a deterrence for some prosecutors and judges (and juries too I imagine) to press for the maximum penalty for a suspect's crimes.

[213374U]

213374U, I apologise if I wasn't clear. But I don't know if you're simply objecting to the notion of moral authority.

No. I object to the notion that moral authority has anything to do with democracy - a manichaeism often used by populists and demagogues (not implying that you are either, btw). See the French Revolution.

 

 

Keeping someone in jail for life could be thought of as good because it's horrendous, or it allows for them being innocent and the case being reversed. But you can't have BOTH those points. Either its as bad as dying, or it is a quiet place where you wait to have your innocence proven.

As "bad" as dying? That's as bold a statement as it is random, given that nobody really knows how "bad" dying is. All we know is that it's pretty permanent. Note that, again, I'm not arguing against the death penalty from a merciful stance, here. It's debatable whether death is a punishment at all for some people (as evidenced by some folks actually killing themselves in order to avoid punishment). On the other hand, it's hard to argue that indefinite imprisonment (w/ forced labor preferably thrown in for flavor) is an ineffective way of implementing punitive (as opposed to rehabilitative) justice, and it also has the advantage of being reversible as long as the inmate is alive.

 

 

But I do feel it is fair to point out and consider the immense drain on public funds which incarceration causes.

Yes, that's a fair point. Of course, this is subject to opinion, but I think that this is precisely why we finance a state to begin with. Administering the judicial and penitentiary system isn't meant to be cost-effective from a monetary perspective. Exercises of public power aren't, with the exception of tributes... we do need most of those functions, though.

[Gorgon]

You keep pointing out that life in prison is worse than death. That's a value judgement as well surely, and not one you are qualified to make unless you have actually been imprisoned. I'd wager if you asked a condemned man if he would rather wait until tomorrow to have his sentence carried out, and kept asking him that same question, that he would live to be 100.

[Walsingham]

213374U*

 

I admit I was attempting to be preciocious, and it's therefore not surprising if I failed. I was merely trying to say that it is pointless to say that we don't have any right to pass judgement on another person. Surely the 'fairest way to judge someone is by their own system of ethics. And in these cases that would involve large blunt objects being applied to soft areas for the sheer joy of doing so.

 

I accept that you approve of punitive punishment. I accept that - as you say - many people seem to regard death as 'devoutly to be wished'**. Leaving aside my atheist conviction that life is the only really significant thing you can take from someone, I have a problem with punitive justice. Mainly because I don't know how one would construct a tariff. I accept that even if somoene 'only' murdered their wife and isn't likely to kill anyone else it would be quite bold to just let them walk away. But I don't really know how long you should get for that. Honestly I don't.

 

Finally, of course I accept your interesting point about the purpose of the state being to organise expensive things we can't do on our own. I have helped organise some of those functions. But in doing so we must necessarily be careful about what functions we choose to do, and HOW we do them. There's an almost limitless array of things we could do which would improve our lives. Roads, schools, medicine, etc. But I'm saying that protection of the lives of citizens is the most basic aspect of the state.The tribe protects against being clobbered by outsiders, and protects itself from rogue elements that are inside.

 

Again, what are your feelings on the individual cases above? How should they be handled?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*I've always been meaning to ask. Could you change your name to something eaiser to type? I suggest 1234567U. Just a thought.

** Check me out. Shakespeare.

[213374U]

You keep pointing out that life in prison is worse than death.

Do I? As a matter of fact, I sustain that a comparison cannot be established at all. You cannot say which is "better" or "worse" between something and nothing, you know, what with 0 ≠ ∅ and all. Punitive and rehabilitative values for death are null, however, as a consequence of ending the subject's life.

 

 

That's a value judgement as well surely, and not one you are qualified to make unless you have actually been imprisoned. I'd wager if you asked a condemned man if he would rather wait until tomorrow to have his sentence carried out, and kept asking him that same question, that he would live to be 100.

In fact, I wouldn't be qualified to make that jugdement even if I had been in jail, as I would have a partial experience only.

 

And if the man in your example was facing a life without hope or future under harsh conditions, perhaps the answer would not be what you think. Time flies when one is speculating wildly and making unverifiable statements, doesn't it?

[Gorgon]

That wasn't aimed at you exclusively, I sorta lost track of where I was in the discussion when I was writing it.

[Walsingham]

213374U, dodging the question by philosphical showboating isn't terribly helpful. We're not philosophers. I think Gorgon makes an excellent point, and explains it very clearly with his condemned man choice scenario. This is the essence of what we are discussing. A point of public policy, not intellectual abstraction. We can waffle on endlessly about whether we're even having this discussion, but where does it get us besides imparting a sensible humility and an insensible load of trivia?

[213374U]

That wasn't aimed at you exclusively, I sorta lost track of where I was in the discussion when I was writing it.

Oops. I thought you were addressing me. That's egocentrism for you!

 

 

I admit I was attempting to be preciocious, and it's therefore not surprising if I failed. I was merely trying to say that it is pointless to say that we don't have any right to pass judgement on another person. Surely the 'fairest way to judge someone is by their own system of ethics. And in these cases that would involve large blunt objects being applied to soft areas for the sheer joy of doing so.

 

I accept that you approve of punitive punishment. I accept that - as you say - many people seem to regard death as 'devoutly to be wished'**. Leaving aside my atheist conviction that life is the only really significant thing you can take from someone, I have a problem with punitive justice. Mainly because I don't know how one would construct a tariff. I accept that even if somoene 'only' murdered their wife and isn't likely to kill anyone else it would be quite bold to just let them walk away. But I don't really know how long you should get for that. Honestly I don't.

 

Finally, of course I accept your interesting point about the purpose of the state being to organise expensive things we can't do on our own. I have helped organise some of those functions. But in doing so we must necessarily be careful about what functions we choose to do, and HOW we do them. There's an almost limitless array of things we could do which would improve our lives. Roads, schools, medicine, etc. But I'm saying that protection of the lives of citizens is the most basic aspect of the state.The tribe protects against being clobbered by outsiders, and protects itself from rogue elements that are inside.

 

Again, what are your feelings on the individual cases above? How should they be handled?

I'm not too good at composing texts, but I'm going to try and address your points without chopping up your post, so bear with me.

 

I think we can agree that societies must protect themselves from undesirable elements. In this vein, the state is constructed to protect society, and so we invest the state with the power to suppress individuals and groups. However, nobody likes when the power to lop one's head off is wielded frequently and arbitrarily. So human communities make up rules, codify them to different extents, and appoint people to act on those rules under different guises. The thing is, those rules are pretty arbitrary themselves, often incoherent among themselves and the popular sentiment, and strongly influenced by how the intellectual elite of the time believes things should be done. That's "morals", and yes, that makes me a relativist at heart. I do realize how pointless and paralyzing this stance is.

 

That said, I understand the need for the state to exist and that this existance implies that wills (and lives) will be quashed due to the inherent imperfection of the system and, ultimately, to the fact that irreconcilable postures exist. So the power of the state to judge and break the individual isn't as much a "right" as it is a necessity to prevent the state from collapsing and society as we know it along with it. You know, my skin crawls when people refer to "rights", because the word is very emotionally loaded, and exploited because of this. It causes a different impression to, for example, "prerogative" or "privilege" and yet, what in the past were prerogatives now are rights, and in the future may be neither. I don't like how "right" gets thrown around as if somehow, nature guaranteed those as it ensures that stuff will fall downwards. And of course, rights are free and we shouldn't have to work to earn them. OH NOES! I'm rambling again.

 

The fundamental problem I see with the death penalty in a society which claims to treasure individual life so is one of consistency. A system cannot, in my opinion, have the "right to live" at its core and make its protection the #1 priority, and then accept that, in the process of enforcing that protection, lives will be taken when there are alternatives. That's one contradiction I simply cannot get over. The catch is, this teeny weeny bit of doublethink destroys the superior moral authority from which the state purportedly draws its legitimacy. Ah, crap. It was all so easy when laws were given directly by God. But with this pesky logic ruling our affairs nowadays, things are so much trickier.

 

You asked for specifics. I can't give you any. I don't know the impact that increasing or decreasing the severity of penalties would have on the effectiveness of punitive justice as an element of social order, probably because each individual has different thresholds and it's impossible to establish a single rule that fits everyone. I'd rather err on the side of excess, though. But the harshest penalties one can imagine are still not guaranteed to dissuade all.

 

As for what to do with the stars of your examples, I thought my stance was pretty clear. In case it wasn't. I love the rhetorics used to explain and justify it, too. Old skool stuff.

 

 

213374U, dodging the question by philosphical showboating isn't terribly helpful. We're not philosophers. I think Gorgon makes an excellent point, and explains it very clearly with his condemned man choice scenario. This is the essence of what we are discussing. A point of public policy, not intellectual abstraction. We can waffle on endlessly about whether we're even having this discussion, but where does it get us besides imparting a sensible humility and an insensible load of trivia?

Hey! What's the internet coming to if I can't even stroke my ego now?

 

But, if not philosophy, not statistics, not ethics, then... what do you want to base your argument for the death penalty on? For the record, I didn't dodge the question. I simply attempted to make it clear that opinions on whether death is better or worse than X are simply that... opinions. Uninformed opinions, at that. And as for Gorgon's example, do a search on "concentration camps suicide". Of course nobody wants to die when sitting comfortably in front of a TV, without having to work for a living. Start turning the comfort dial down, though...

 

Oh, and now that you mention it, I've been contemplating a handle change. Seeing as I couldn't think of anything more retarded than my current one (or those used for alts), we'll have to live with it for now. In the meantime, I recommend that you, er, use the quote button.

[Nihilus5078]

Life in Prison is more preferable rather than death penalty.

[Walsingham]

Pointless and arbitrary? Possibly. Unnecessary? More possible, I feel. If there can be no logical foundation for a moral standpoint then that logical realisation is itself invalid. It is self-defeating. Like the Pope using his infallibility to state he gets things wrong. In any event, even presuming you were correct it must be a superior experience to live by absolutism since you aren't crippled by indecision. Just eat the damn cookie, etc etc.

 

Anyway, I applaud your self-undermining. Very English.

 

I suggest 'Spiffy McLovehandle' as your tag, by the way.

[Calax]

Alanschu, I take your point about recidivism. Clearly many murderers (as John Mortimer observed) are quite calm since they've got rid of the one person who was really annoying them. We are discussing serious violent repeat offenders. Multiple rapists, multiple murderers or attempted murderers. People who we can have little confidence in rehabilitation.

Just going to point out that there is a very good chance that they will become worse in prison rather than "corrected" due to the culture within set up by the prisoners. There is no way we can get rid of this culture and we'll always find ourselves stuck with a system where you're gonna be making things worse as well as better.

[Walsingham]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...ealth-unit.html

 

Another case. Multiple rapist, escapes from custody and murders old man for his TV. Utilises false names, false ID, even shows up to a police station. Rehabilitation at this stage?

[Hell Kitty]

Are the death penalty and rehabilitation the only options here?

[Walsingham]

Sorry. I guess that is how it looks. My point was essentially that a persistent, very violent offender ought not to be dealt with by the current system of incarcerate and then simply release. Parole and monitoring outside jail appears to have insufficient impact on reoffending. Taking this as valid, we are left with three options: rehabilitate, remand, and re... something involving a pint of ether and a big lump of rock.

 

However, looking at it in this way is straying from the whole point of my posting this topic. I am not attempting to prove the death penalty is sensible. I am simply attempting to prove that NOT using the death penalty is NOT sensible. On some limited occasions. These cases are the 'one black swans' that disprove the rule of non-capital punishment.

[Hell Kitty]

What is this "rule of non-capital punishment"?

[Walsingham]

What is this "rule of non-capital punishment"?

 

It is nothing more or less than the oft-repeated statement 'I don't believe in capital punishment'. I used to say it, until I got more involved in criminal reporting. I accept all the stuff about how hard it is to make legal cases, but I also feel that some crimes, and some criminals demand it. The most recent example I gave is a bad one, because guilt is less clear, but it does helpfully illustrate that I am very keen on guilt being practically unassailable.

[Hell Kitty]

How do cases like this, these "black swans", disprove peoples disbelief in capital punishment? That doesn't make any sense. If, for example, one doesn't believe in capital punishment because they believe any form of killing is wrong, this case isn't going to change that belief, and it certainly isn't going to "disprove" it.

 

I am simply attempting to prove that NOT using the death penalty is NOT sensible.

 

This is an impossibility.

Edited June 26, 2009 by Hell Kitty

[Walsingham]

The black swan in thi scase is simply to address the three planks of objection ...I'm thinking as I go here...

 

- Evidence

- Humanitarian grounds of mercy

- Prospect of rehabilitation

 

I know I used a double negative. I get that way sometimes.

[213374U]

Pointless and arbitrary? Possibly. Unnecessary? More possible, I feel. If there can be no logical foundation for a moral standpoint then that logical realisation is itself invalid. It is self-defeating. Like the Pope using his infallibility to state he gets things wrong. In any event, even presuming you were correct it must be a superior experience to live by absolutism since you aren't crippled by indecision. Just eat the damn cookie, etc etc.

 

Anyway, I applaud your self-undermining. Very English.

 

I suggest 'Spiffy McLovehandle' as your tag, by the way.

If you were trying to confuse me, you have succeeded. You're going to have to elaborate on how sound logic applied to X is less valid than when applied to Z, if it leads us to an undesirable conclusion. Your Pope example doesn't help either, since Papal infallibility isn't meant to be founded on reason anyway. The Holy Spirit doesn't care about silly logic!

 

Explain?

 

 

Sorry. I guess that is how it looks. My point was essentially that a persistent, very violent offender ought not to be dealt with by the current system of incarcerate and then simply release. Parole and monitoring outside jail appears to have insufficient impact on reoffending. Taking this as valid, we are left with three options: rehabilitate, remand, and re... something involving a pint of ether and a big lump of rock.

 

However, looking at it in this way is straying from the whole point of my posting this topic. I am not attempting to prove the death penalty is sensible. I am simply attempting to prove that NOT using the death penalty is NOT sensible. On some limited occasions. These cases are the 'one black swans' that disprove the rule of non-capital punishment.

You are presenting a false dilemma. Just because you or I can't come up with fail-proof solutions for criminals that are beyond rehabilitation does not mean that your solution is acceptable or that there can't be any that's better. Your argument that "not having the death penalty isn't sensible" is pretty frail because it's based on a slippery slope - not killing these criminals does not imply they will be able to re-offend (or, more accurately, shouldn't imply). The current justice system is bloated, inefficient and outdated... but that isn't going to get better by sending people to the gallows. And you haven't commented on Laogai either - I'd very much like to know your opinion.

 

FYI, I'm Spanish.

[Walsingham]

Alas I am a humble destructive engineer and formerly psychologist. Not a philosopher. I'm also none too bright when the wind is northerly.

 

To explain: you assert that it is impossible for a human to construct any logically superior moral standpoint. I allege that in itself that statement is a moral standpoint of amorality. Therefore by its own rationale it is inconclusive and self-defeating. At best it is simply no worse than any other standpoint. Therefore if you find it annoying you should abandon it.

 

You make a good point about options. It may be the case that in the future we could come up with a better solution than execution. For example, a better solution would be 'freezing' a person in a low maintenance state. We could use them as draft-excluders.

 

I do not support the use of the laogai (I had to look them up). Firstly, they seem unneccessary. A machine can do the same work, and it won't require 24 hour guarding. Secondly, there's no possibility of escape, which is a real problem. More than 20 serial killers are believed to be on the run in the United States having escaped custody after conviction. I might change my mind if there were some sort of cost-effective use for them. Space exploration is the most obvious thing which springs to mind. Mine-clearance is another. And I mean proper mine clearance, not just herding them around, amusing as that might seem.

 

EDIT: It just occurred to me that we may be speaking at crossed purpose in an important respect. I don't believe there would be more than a handful of such cases in a year. Maybe no more than 20 for the UK. Only around half might be established to the correct degree of certainty. Not much forced labour you can get out of that few people.

Edited June 27, 2009 by Walsingham

[213374U]

To explain: you assert that it is impossible for a human to construct any logically superior moral standpoint. I allege that in itself that statement is a moral standpoint of amorality. Therefore by its own rationale it is inconclusive and self-defeating. At best it is simply no worse than any other standpoint. Therefore if you find it annoying you should abandon it.

Oh crap. Looks like I managed to come across as a relativist again. While I appreciate the fundamental truth behind moral relativism, I can only agree with you in that it's utterly useless... sad that truth has no use, while manichaean postures are far more effective. Or maybe I'm just making an interested interpretation based on my severely lacking historical notions.

 

That's beside the point, anyway. I do not make value judgements, what is "logically superior", and what isn't. I only point to the holes in the structure, and the double standards used to cover them. If the current premises (human life is sacrosanct, #1 priority should be to preserve it, etc) prevent us from enacting necessary reforms to improve things like quality of life, stability, security, happiness... then perhaps it's time to re-examine those premises, and reassess their worth, as well as their foundations and implications. The time isn't right for a revolution, yet.

 

 

I do not support the use of the laogai (I had to look them up). Firstly, they seem unneccessary. A machine can do the same work, and it won't require 24 hour guarding. Secondly, there's no possibility of escape, which is a real problem. More than 20 serial killers are believed to be on the run in the United States having escaped custody after conviction. I might change my mind if there were some sort of cost-effective use for them. Space exploration is the most obvious thing which springs to mind. Mine-clearance is another. And I mean proper mine clearance, not just herding them around, amusing as that might seem.

 

EDIT: It just occurred to me that we may be speaking at crossed purpose in an important respect. I don't believe there would be more than a handful of such cases in a year. Maybe no more than 20 for the UK. Only around half might be established to the correct degree of certainty. Not much forced labour you can get out of that few people.

I'm talking out of my ass here, but there must be mining operations somewhere that aren't cost-effective if exploited by conventional means. Having indentured servitude should seriously slash costs, making an otherwise unsustainable venture into something the state may get something out of. And I don't think Laogai is reserved only to punish the most hideous and reprobable of crimes - everyone who does time, works some... as it should be.

 

Of course the most desirable alternative would be the Martian equivalent of the British penal colony system, that didn't turn out all that bad in the end.