Hope you rot in hell!!!!!

[Agathon]

Originally posted by skywalker
What's wrong with revenge? It seems to me that that's the basis of our justice system. In fact, screw the "lethal injection" crap, and make the death more painful the worse the crime.

What's wrong with it is that there is no rational justification for it. All the attempts to justify it rely on crypto-religious beliefs or on mere emotionalism.

People say that if a person freely chooses to kill someone else, that this somehow entitles other people to kill him. What I want to know is why I should believe this?

Of course revenge is a completely natural human emotion, as are love and anger; but the mere having of this emotion does not justify acting on it. If it did, then merely feeling lust would legitimate rape, but it doesn't.

Retributivists talk about "the balance of justice" or, as Imran did "Atonement" (itself a religious concept). The idea is that the punishment somehow makes up or corrects for an imbalance in the natural order which was caused by the criminal act. But what does this mean? There just is no natural balance or order of natural justice - these things are metaphysical fictions, or as I claimed earlier crypto-religious beliefs.

The best account I have seen is that by acting in the way he does, the criminal is in effect saying that it is alright for anyone to act this way, and so others can do the same to him by applying his own standard. But the immediate objection is that these people by harming the criminal put themselves in the same situation and open themselves up to retributive action. Imran tried to get out of this by claiming that the State has a special status which exempts it from this regress of responsibility, but he could provide no justification for that belief.

In fact, if we look at most crimes, the purpose of punishment is deterrence. If someone attacks another person and injures them, the state does not injure these people back in the same way, but puts them in prison. This prevents them from doing it again and provides an incentive for violent people to think twice about their actions. But it isn't clear how a particular length of prison sentence is supposed to "fit" the crime. In fact, when people talk about punishment "fitting the crime" they don't really know what they mean and could not provide an objective account of why, for example, rape is worth 10 years rather than 15. The fact that different countries have massively divergent sentences for the same crime, shows that there is no objective metric by which to determine the appropriate punishment for a crime.

So what we have left is deterrence. We try to lock up seriously dangerous people to prevent them wreaking havoc in society and we impose severe punishments so as to deter opportunists from committing crimes.

But the real nail in the coffin of retributivism is that it completely ignores preventive deterrence. According to retributivists, only when someone has committed a crime is the state justified in punishing them. No action should be taken to prevent crime at all, since there is no justification for it.

Consider the possibility that at some point in the future, we will be able to test for psychopathy and predict the incidence of criminal activity with a 95% rate of success. Consider also in this case, that we have no effective treatment for psychopathy. What do we do? Do we let known pyschopaths walk the streets and endanger the lives of citizens because they have as yet committed no crime, or do we find some way of monitoring them or sequestering them from the rest of society?

A retributivist would say that we must do nothing, since these people have committed no crime. But that's just dumb - what they are saying in effect is that we should fail to protect victims of crime. And this shows them up for what they are - they are not champions of victims rights, they are only interested in punishing people. This is a barbaric and pre-civilized attitude based on nothing more than a desire to wreak cruel vengeance upon others, rather than being serious about crime.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Tattila the Hun
But them in some hole, infect them with some disease and let them (literally) rot. Might get the rest to think twice.

And whoever disagrees with this is a wussy!

I am wussy and proud of it. Welcome to the 21st Century.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Soooooo....who's for the death penalty?

Killin's too good for 'im. He should have something a as esquisite, but much longer term.

[curtsibling]

For once I agree with Mr Slowwhand!

Now that's got to mean something!

I would wish total death on this kid-killing creep right now, and all hand-wringing whiners can join him!

[Imran Siddiqui]

The State is not morally justified in doing anything, nor does it "decide" which moral rights people have, or what is right or wrong.

Um yes it does. All rights flow from the state. If the state decides you don't have the right to life, you don't. That simple.

I find this quite magical.

Then find it magical. Actors acting on behalf of the state are not acting for themselves and thus are not are not morally blameworthy. Oh, and before your bring in Nuremberg, I'll respond to that later down in the post (to Oncle Boris' question).

What if the moral code of that society is to present yourself for rape by smelly old men? Would I be morally blameworthy for refusing to do it, and should I be punished?

Yes and yes. That's the moral code of society and until you can change it, it should be followed.

So if I steal 50 bucks, I should give 50 bucks back. Sounds like an excellent deal to me, if I can get away with it one out of every five times. Oh... you think the punishment should be more? Why? - deterrence obviously.

No, not obviously. Paying back your crime to society doesn't mean simply pecuniary pay back, but moral payback. You stay in because you've done wrong and deserve your punishment, in order that society is payed back in that way.

If you think that is wrong, then you have to provide a reason as to why it is OK to act on some emotions and not others.

'Cause the state and society have decided some emotions shouldn't be acted upon for an ordered society.

A state has no moral code -- a state must be amoral for your above point to stand.

Society does. And the state and society usually exist in tandem.

Was the Nuremberg trial unfair because the convincted had acted on behalf of the state?

Except for those who actually ran the state (Goering, Tirpitz, etc), yes. I always thought it was wrong that the judges of the state were found guilty of simply doing their jobs (and being in a Civil Law country, they didn't make any of the law).

But, of course, that is what happens when you lose a war. The winners decide who gets theirs.

that means it can only be applied very rarely and when there is such a preponderance of evidence as to assure the guilt of the criminal. I'm not talking mere "beyond a reasonable doubt," I'm talking about beyond ANY doubt.

I can agree with that.

If you only care about revenge, please don't go into criminal law.

You've obviously never stepped foot into a Prosecutor's Office.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The State is not morally justified in doing anything, nor does it "decide" which moral rights people have, or what is right or wrong.

Um yes it does. All rights flow from the state. If the state decides you don't have the right to life, you don't. That simple.

This is a fallacy called "conflation of morality with legality". You will find it listed in any good practical logic book.

I find this quite magical.

Then find it magical. Actors acting on behalf of the state are not acting for themselves and thus are not are not morally blameworthy. Oh, and before your bring in Nuremberg, I'll respond to that later down in the post (to Oncle Boris' question).

So you are going to dodge the question. Come on Imran, you are smarter than this. Show me what makes the difference.

What if the moral code of that society is to present yourself for rape by smelly old men? Would I be morally blameworthy for refusing to do it, and should I be punished?

Yes and yes. That's the moral code of society and until you can change it, it should be followed.

That may be the moral code of society, but that doesn't mean it is right.

Besides, this view is easy to reduce to paradox. What it one part of the moral code of the assraping society is that it is wrong to change the moral code of the assraping society.

So if I steal 50 bucks, I should give 50 bucks back. Sounds like an excellent deal to me, if I can get away with it one out of every five times. Oh... you think the punishment should be more? Why? - deterrence obviously.

No, not obviously. Paying back your crime to society doesn't mean simply pecuniary pay back, but moral payback. You stay in because you've done wrong and deserve your punishment, in order that society is payed back in that way.

But you've provided no account of what this moral currency is. That leads me to believe it is metaphysical fancy rather than having anything to do with reality. As I pointed out above, the fact that different societies have different sentences is prima facie evidence that there is no such moral "currency" or "balance".

If you think that is wrong, then you have to provide a reason as to why it is OK to act on some emotions and not others.

'Cause the state and society have decided some emotions shouldn't be acted upon for an ordered society.

And you call me a totalitarian.

A state has no moral code -- a state must be amoral for your above point to stand.

Society does. And the state and society usually exist in tandem.

But not always. The state can oppress its citizens. So your point loses all force, since by your lights that is impossible.


Come on man! Your side is losing and losing horribly at that .

[Tattila the Hun]

Just popped to my mind, what did Rudolf Hess do? Exept crashing a perfectly good Me? He did spent his life in Spandau...

[curtsibling]

His close links to Adolf and his strange, heavy eyebrows were deplored by the victorious Allies.

[Imran Siddiqui]

This is a fallacy called "conflation of morality with legality". You will find it listed in any good practical logic book.

That's nice... But law is just legislated morality.

So you are going to dodge the question. Come on Imran, you are smarter than this. Show me what makes the difference.

I have. The difference is the individuals aren't doing it because they want to kill people, they are doing it because the state wants to kill people. I really don't see what is so hard to grasp about this.

That may be the moral code of society, but that doesn't mean it is right.

It is for that society at that time.

What it one part of the moral code of the assraping society is that it is wrong to change the moral code of the assraping society.

It is never wrong to change the moral code of society. But it is 'wrong' to go against it. Of course some people prefer to do the wrong in order to change the moral code. That is their decision.

But you've provided no account of what this moral currency is.

I don't have to. That is up to each society to decide what the weights are.

The state can oppress its citizens. So your point loses all force, since by your lights that is impossible.

I've said it is impossible for the state to oppress its citizens? It is very possible, it is also isn't 'wrong' for that state or society.

Your side is losing and losing horribly at that .

It is actually winning, since you can't wrap your mind around very simple concepts .

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Either way, no electric chair. Lethal injection done as quietly as possible. We can hopefully avoid having bloodthirsty animals like you cheering for it.

I take the opposing view. Run an execution live (no pun intended) during prime-time.

I'm opposed to the death penalty (once supported it) and feel EVERYONE should see what the State does in their name. One gruesome public execution should about finish the argument.

[curtsibling]

Sure.

I am sure many Americans would shed a tear at Osama being fried.

Did anyone cry when the Omaha bomber got his just fate?

Case closed.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

This is a fallacy called "conflation of morality with legality". You will find it listed in any good practical logic book.

That's nice... But law is just legislated morality.

no it isn't and that is irrelevant. You said in effect that being legal is the same as being moral. That is false, since it is possible to engage in moral criticism of the law without contradicting oneself.

So you are going to dodge the question. Come on Imran, you are smarter than this. Show me what makes the difference.

I have. The difference is the individuals aren't doing it because they want to kill people, they are doing it because the state wants to kill people. I really don't see what is so hard to grasp about this.

It doesn't work. I might as well say that I'm not killing people because the Toronto Mac User Group wants me to kill people. Try again.

What it one part of the moral code of the assraping society is that it is wrong to change the moral code of the assraping society.

It is never wrong to change the moral code of society. But it is 'wrong' to go against it. Of course some people prefer to do the wrong in order to change the moral code. That is their decision.

Again. But what if the moral code of society prohibits trying to change it? You've contradicted yourself.

But you've provided no account of what this moral currency is.

I don't have to. That is up to each society to decide what the weights are.

But there is no non-arbitrary mechanism for doing so. And that's because the idea is a fiction.

The state can oppress its citizens. So your point loses all force, since by your lights that is impossible.

I've said it is impossible for the state to oppress its citizens? It is very possible, it is also isn't 'wrong' for that state or society.

"Oppress" is a moral word. If it's impossible for the state to do moral wrong, then by definition it is impossible for it to oppress its citizens.

Your side is losing and losing horribly at that .

It is actually winning, since you can't wrap your mind around very simple concepts .

Which you can't seem to explain. Anyone who reads this thread will know that it is you who has failed to explain your own theory. Your've basically just repeated your theory as if that counted as a justification. I even gave your side's explanation and showed how it doesn't work.

You're a good guy Imran, but this is like shooting fish in a barrel.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by curtsibling
Sure.

I am sure many Americans would shed a tear at Osama being fried.

Did anyone cry when the Omaha bomber got his just fate?

Case closed.

Read my post again. You obviously missed the PUBLIC part.

Case not even considered. Try again.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You said in effect that being legal is the same as being moral.

No, I said that laws are legislated morality, which is different. While the state grants all rights, there can exist other morality which says there are other rights. They can say it all they want, but that doesn't mean those other rights exist, at least in that society.

I might as well say that I'm not killing people because the Toronto Mac User Group wants me to kill people.

The Toronto Mac User Group doesn't have the power in society. So try again yourself.

But what if the moral code of society prohibits trying to change it?

Then it is 'wrong' to try to change the code AT THAT TIME. It is never wrong to actually change the moral code, because when you change it then you are validated. Trying to change and actually changing are two different things.

That doesn't mean that people won't try to do wrong to change it, but it still is wrong to do so in that society. Like the USSR. It was wrong to try to change the code of society, but once a moral code was changed than the attempt to change that aspect was ok.

there is no non-arbitrary mechanism for doing so.

And your point? What is the non-arbitrary mechanism for deterrance? Why should a rapist get 10 instead of 15? How do we know that 10 would deter just as good?

"Oppress" is a moral word. If it's impossible for the state to do moral wrong, then by definition it is impossible for it to oppress its citizens.

Not for an outsider. Because their societies have their own defintion of what is a moral wrong or right and they can critcize other societies. However, even though they can do so, doesn't mean they are correct... unless they have the power to do something about it.

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by Wezil
Read my post again. You obviously missed the PUBLIC part.

So you think that we would all turn weepy at seeing a killer rapist cash his chips?

Have you ever seen the aftermath of a crime, or are you an armchair moralist?

Originally posted by Wezil
Case not even considered. Try again.

Sorry, Over-ruled!