A Warning for JohnT

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by 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)

What if someone dies while in prison? You can't free them afterwards.

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.

Of course they are. The entire justice system (by which I'm not referring to the justice of the previous post) is based on punishment proportional to the crime. Therefore, prison time - at least, the length of it - is on an "eye-for-an-eye" basis.

[Japher]

What the justice system needs is some sort of positive reinforcement. If I kept punishing my dog without rewarding her she'd be a *****... wait, she is a *****.

you know what I mean.

[Immortal Wombat]

What if someone dies while in prison?

Thats unfortunate, but irrelevant to the morality of the death penalty, unless you have some brilliant alternative to prison which could replace it with no possiblity anyone dying mid-punishment.

The entire justice system (by which I'm not referring to the justice of the previous post) is based on punishment proportional to the crime. Therefore, prison time - at least, the length of it - is on an "eye-for-an-eye" basis.

Yes, the entire justice system, not just that of kidnapping. It's not "oh, you locked someone up, so we'll lock you up", its "oh, you broke the law, we'll lock you up". It's not an eye-for-an-eye. We don't confiscate the property of burglars, we don't bugger rapists. It's proportional prison time, yes: so give a murderer life, don't change the whole order of magnitude of punishment.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

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

Actually, it is a a concept such as Love or Hope, not Christianity or Liberterianism, both of which have rules and concepts and so forth.

It's also a moral theory. It isn't a type of utilitarianism; it is a morality, an end in and of itself.

That's the thing: ITS NOT. Justice is Amoral in the sense that the purpose is not to come up with a moral judgement, but a policy of action.

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.

What does "Justice" say the punishment for 2nd Degree Manslaughter should be? or drunken and disorderly behavior? Or smoking a joint? There are no "precepts of Justice" that would give you an answer. The few precepts of justice that exist deal with procedure, NOT outcome. In factm procedure is more important than outcome when it comes to justice.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Japher
What the justice system needs is some sort of positive reinforcement.

Yeah, like on Lilliput.

[Japher]

I work in the pharma field, as you may know. I work in manufacturing. It part of my duty to make sure that the process is performed the same day and day out.. Nothing is suppose to change... ever. I see the manuf. crew eyeing all those in research and development. They all think those R&D guys have it great, everytime they reach a milestone they get a party, all we get is yelled out when something goes wrong.

Sometimes it is hard to see what is going right, people only reward improvements not consistency without error.

You always hear stories about the reformer, not about the guy who never got in trouble.

I am changing that where I work. I am rewarding people for consistent and excellent service.

I don't know how one could do that in society though.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
Actually, it is a a concept such as Love or Hope, not Christianity or Liberterianism, both of which have rules and concepts and so forth.

It's a moral theory.

That's the thing: ITS NOT. Justice is Amoral in the sense that the purpose is not to come up with a moral judgement, but a policy of action.

Justice doesn't have a "purpose". Justice does come up with moral judgements, just as utilitarianism or libertarianism do - moral judgements as to the proper punishment for a crime.

What does "Justice" say the punishment for 2nd Degree Manslaughter should be? or drunken and disorderly behavior? Or smoking a joint? There are no "precepts of Justice" that would give you an answer. The few precepts of justice that exist deal with procedure, NOT outcome. In factm procedure is more important than outcome when it comes to justice.

Because it doesn't provide an exact answer when we use it doesn't make it not a moral theory - it simply says that punishments should be proportional to the crimes.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Japher
I work in the pharma field, as you may know. I work in manufacturing. It part of my duty to make sure that the process is performed the same day and day out.. Nothing is suppose to change... ever. I see the manuf. crew eyeing all those in research and development. They all think those R&D guys have it great, everytime they reach a milestone they get a party, all we get is yelled out when something goes wrong.

Sometimes it is hard to see what is going right, people only reward improvements not consistency without error.

You always hear stories about the reformer, not about the guy who never got in trouble.

I am changing that where I work. I am rewarding people for consistent and excellent service.

I don't know how one could do that in society though.

aaaaaaaawwwwww . . . . . . .

We feel for ya, man.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
Yes, the entire justice system, not just that of kidnapping. It's not "oh, you locked someone up, so we'll lock you up", its "oh, you broke the law, we'll lock you up". It's not an eye-for-an-eye. We don't confiscate the property of burglars, we don't bugger rapists. It's proportional prison time, yes: so give a murderer life, don't change the whole order of magnitude of punishment.

It isn't an eye-for-an-eye by giving them the same punishment; it's eye-for-an-eye in that the punishment is (supposed to be) proportional to the crime. Most people in the US think that the DP is the only punishment that can be proportional to the crime of murder.

[Whaleboy]

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.

Uh, no, if you assume existential free will, then it is merely a state, a condition, like murder. It simply defines justice, murder etc, doesn't say whether or not they are good or bad, though in a relative social context it's easy to do so of course.

Kuci: Please explain the mechanism behind "proportional" in this case and furthermore explain how it is relevant to the question of justice.

[Whaleboy]

What if someone dies while in prison? You can't free them afterwards.

That's like equating natural death to murder.

[Whaleboy]

Actually, it is a a concept such as Love or Hope, not Christianity or Liberterianism, both of which have rules and concepts and so forth.

Or that!

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by MrFun
murderers


death penalty


Ted Striker

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Berzerker
More psychotics will kill with either.


That's what I meant by psychological distance, guns give us some. Cruise missiles give us even more... The point is this girl isn't you, she's evil. Going by what the police said, she was mad at mommy for grounding her. It takes a perverse mind to turn that into a reason to kill and a perverse mind will find a way to kill even if there is no gun available.

I know in the current state of things this is a threadjack but its actually a return to the original subject...
I think you kind of sidestep my points.
Of course we agree that psychotics kill more.
I was saying taht people (psychos AND non-psychos together) will kill more with guns that with batons I think.

We agree that gun distance.
And then you say, well psychos dont need distance.
And here is what I think :
Some people will overcome the distance in any case , so those will kill with baton or guns.

Now youre telling me you believe the number of people who will kill with a gun and not with a knife is smaller or equal to the number of people who will kill with a knife but not a gun ( I believe the last one to be very close to zero.)

What Im saying is that while certainly some psychos will kill whatever the means, many lets say "more ordinary" people WILL be deterred by non-availability of an "easy (with a large distance as we agreed)" method of killing.

[Mr. Harley]

Guns are the ultimate weapon of those lacking "impulse-control". They provide and convenient, easy, instant result. Populations associated with impulse-control problems include children, adolescents, sociopaths, AD/HD, large amounts of the criminal element, the mentally retarded, etc. Controlling guns effectively, i.e. where it's also very difficult for the criminal element to get hold of them, should reduce the number of murders, both for the impulse control reason and the fact you are more likely to fight off/survive the attack with other weapons.

That given, I can make an equivalent argument about banning alchohol and making car ownership viciously difficult while making more mass transit available. In both cases lack of impulse control with people who use them - alchohol and motor vehicles - causes huge numbers of death. What we are arguing here should be the threshold at which the governmnet bans things that when used properly do no harm, but when abused/used stupidly kill people. Actually, lots of people, and without checking I strongly suspect that alchohol abuse kills more peope in the US than guns, especially due to the problem with driving under the influence here.

Me, I vote for punishing the idiots and leave the legal users alone. Once you start finding acceptable the banning of something due to potential abuse, where does it end? Since some people have irresponsible sex, and cause AIDS, do we ban sex - don't laugh, look at the fate of women in Afghanistan found to be unmarried with a broken hymen - and the police have it checked it certain cirumstances! Maybe we'll ban all anal sex due to the health risks - it doesn't float my boat, but if you want to, well, in the privacy of you bedroom... Be careful what you wish for.