A Warning for JohnT

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Some people are and some people aren't. It depends.

The study I posted brings up some important questions about the theory that the DP has deterrence effects.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
Actually, NO. Justice is the action society deems necessary to undo or stop the damage done by one invidual doing something that endagers the stability and continuation of the group. The mian issue is not the crime, but the possible consequencs to society from the act and the danger posed by the passions inflamed.

No, that's the utilitarian justification for justice.

Vengence is an attempt to "balance" the damage done by causing damage to the entity seen as responsible. This damage may or may not increase the overall damage done to the stability and continuation of society, and hence it is discouraged or brought under control.

Vengeance is still justice, when in proportion to the crime.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Are you also scared how kidnappers are sent to jail?

I wondered if someone would say that. No. I'm not. Society doesn't send ransom notes to the parents.

It's pretty simple, actually. If I built a Death Star and blew up the planet, I think it'd be pretty accurate to label me evil.

I imagine it would be quite hard to build a Death Star in the heat of the moment.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
I wondered if someone would say that. No. I'm not. Society doesn't send ransom notes to the parents.

Bail.

And what about kidnappers who don't ask for money? What if they just like abducting people?

I imagine it would be quite hard to build a Death Star in the heat of the moment.

It's still just one action.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

No, that's the utilitarian justification for justice.

As opposed to?

Vengeance is still justice, when in proportion to the crime.

No, vengence is not justice-justic is dispassionate (hence the blindfold), Vengence is inherently emotional and driven by passion.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
As opposed to?

As opposed to what justice is.

What you were giving is the justification, the reason we should have justice, from a utilitarian standpoint.

No, vengence is not justice-justic is dispassionate (hence the blindfold), Vengence is inherently emotional and driven by passion.

Well, then the DP isn't vengeance.

[Immortal Wombat]

Without knowing the mental state of the girl at the time of the killing, without knowing how long (or not) she spent deliberating or deciding, how, when and why to kill her mother, it's absolutely impossible to come up with an analagous situation on a larger scale to paint her evil. We don't know if it was a calculated act - she clearly had issues - she may have gone straight to the gun cupboard, sat rocking backwards and forwards nursing the hate for a couple of hours, then gone in and shot. That's not evil, that's just wrong.

There is no way that during the construction of a Death Star you wouldn't have serious moral doubts about using it, unless you are evil.

Or if you must, how about this: You're really pissed with planet Earth because they everyone on the planet individuall has turned down your request to stay up late and go out with boys. You're flying to your bedroom in an X-wing, and you suddenly find yourself passing by the external on/off switch on the Death Star. You're still really pissed and not really thinking things through, so you flick the switch and blow up the planet. Oops. You're evil.

[Whaleboy]

I notice that you originally started by claiming there was no deterrent effect, changing to there is a deterrent effect but I don't think it is large enough, going to the death penalty is nothing but revenge killing. Keep changing your argument and maybe you'll come up with a winner.

Nein, I don't think there is a deterrent effect except in cases of hot-blooded murder as I have originally said and maintained. With psychotic, severely psychopathic and sociopathic cases, the effect of such "deterrents", particularly nonchalent sociological fear is going to be negligible/nothing.

The death penalty isn't about revenge killing it is about making the punishment fit the crime and by having that punishment serve society through detering future crime. In short it is about justice and the good of society.

Having the punishment fit the crime? So an eye for an eye basically? You have two choices, punishment in the sense of doing the person an equal evil that they have done others (and I use the flawed concept of "evil" in that deliberately), or deal with them on a subjective basis. Punishment is fine if it will stop the punished from committing the crime, or keep them separate from society if they cannot be cured, but punishment for the sheer hell of it, making them suffer as it were to no end, that's just revenge and thus not justice.

You'll note of course that parents will sometimes make their children suffer but to the end of stopping their behaviour, those that do it for revenge or enjoyment are hardly fit parents now are they? Or are things different in Texas?

I don't see it as wrong; instead I see it as a justifiable penalty for the worst criminals of our society. The fact that numeropus studies also show this deters other crime is just a bonus.

I'm sorry but you fail to show how it is justifiable. I very much doubt you will be able to do so without resorting to "an eye for an eye" or a twisted version of "supply and demand" that only works in cases of hot blood (self-defense).

The anti-DP guy claims that no matter what personal responsability for executing the wrong people should be avoided while the pro-DP guy claims that the most innocent lives should be saved. It's a pure value argument and as such there can be no winner.

No that assumes that the latter utilitarian argument (because as MikeH said, it effectively boils down to the speculative possibility that lives are saved as a result of people being proactively killed, and contextually in your case, many of them innocent. That consequential logic fails to account for the individual in question and since I assume you are talking about justice and not revenge then that is what you must do. Consequentialism is fine for dealing with your own life but in situations like this, it tends to break down, otherwise the debate would have been settled long ago.

What ever deterrent effect execution has surely life in prison (especially when life in prison often means 20 years in prison) has a much, much smaller deterrent effect. In many cases life in prison is a more just punishment then execution though. I'd only put up execution for the worst of the worst especially if they were repeat offenders as doing so would virtually eliminate the possibility of an innocent man being wrongfully accussed.

Seems to me like an ad hoc attempt to satiate the weakest of the anti-DP arguments. It fails to answer the very pertinent question of justice here I must point out.

I thought psychologists believed that when people murder, they are not thinking about the possible punishment anyway.

Bang on!

Oh my gosh we're so cruel to people who take a gun and kill their parents because they're not allowed to visit boys at night... right.

Has that ever actually been said here?

Not at all. Vengeance and justice are DIRECTLY related. Justice and utilitarianism are not the same thing; justice is not even really doing what's "right". Justice is applying consequences proportional to the crime.

No, justice is, by more advanced definitions, reconciling existential responsibility with actions, whereby one is responsible for ones actions with consideration of their subjective state, very much in the Platonic sense. It's a very interesting field in my view, very easily misunderstood by simplistic, childish arguments such that you have espoused, including the strawman of my argument whereby you have assumed that I think justice is a consequential idea. It is not. Of course, unless you assume solipcism you're not going to be able to make the claim that, therefore, justice is irrelevant. You're argument would effectively boil down to "might makes right", in other words, justice according to the victims and their ability to carry it out. An eye for an eye (or worse) basically.

It's pretty simple, actually. If I built a Death Star and blew up the planet, I think it'd be pretty accurate to label me evil.

By those you have wronged, yes. Objectively, no. Which do you think is sufficient, in the just sense, to kill?

[Whaleboy]

Hell Kuci, you can even use an etymological approach.

Look at the word "justification" and tell me what you see?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by GePap
As opposed to?

As opposed to what justice is.

What you were giving is the justification, the reason we should have justice, from a utilitarian standpoint.

Justice does not exist beyond the reason for it- you can't tsates or touch justice- heck, its hard enough deciding for what justice for each act is and it changes all the time- hence what matters is deciding what is the POINT of justice, and then acitng to enforce this policy. The Utilitarian policy of Justice is the most rational.

Well, then the DP isn't vengeance.

If it is society's prescribed method of dealing with certain murders, then it is not. (I never said it was)

The questions on the DP are moral.

[Immortal Wombat]

As I see it, there are two primary differences between incarceration and execution.
1/ Incarceration is not terminal. (see prior "what if we get it wrong" argument)
2/ Kidnappers aren't imprisoned on an eye-for-an-eye basis which is the justification for executing murderers. Imprisonment is the standard non-lethal punishment because it's the best we've come up with. No it's not ideal, but it beats the hell out of fines. Kidnappers who 'just like abducting' probably need an Institution and then rehabilitation.

[Whaleboy]

GePap: I, as an emotivist, think that you can boil logical positions down to their emotions, and sociologically speaking (witch-hunts etc) you can do the same. Plato (yes I'm going through a Republic phase ) taken forward a couple thousand year would probably say that the philosopher is one who can see through his own emotional states. What I am trying to say is that vengeance is not an intrinsically logical position. It is possible to half-assedly justify it, but vengeance relies upon an opaque emotive assumption that is easily critiqued here. Fundamentally, vengeance boils down to self-interest in this case.

[GePap]

Human beings, as social creatures, depend on their status and standing in a group, as well as knowing which other people they can count on-the wish for revenge I think is an attempt to regain status if someone else harmed ours-to diminish someone elses standing if they have diminished ours- and ensure that others know not to mess with us again.

[Whaleboy]

True, but most of the time I think when people have a moral outrage to something, they're not truly offended they just want to save/maintain face with everyone else, who is doing the same. At heart, I don't think they're so affected. But then of course the larger the group, the greater the stupidity .

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
Justice does not exist beyond the reason for it- you can't tsates or touch justice- heck, its hard enough deciding for what justice for each act is and it changes all the time- hence what matters is deciding what is the POINT of justice, and then acitng to enforce this policy. The Utilitarian policy of Justice is the most rational.

Justice is a concept - as such, it does exist, as much as Christianity or libertarianism does.

It's also a moral theory. It isn't a type of utilitarianism; it is a morality, an end in and of itself. Utilitarians place value on its practice because in many cases it is consistent with utilitarianism - but that doesn't make it utilitarian. A utilitarian would proscribe justice only inasmuch as it is consistent with utilitarianism.