Texas Executes 300th Inmate

[Wycoff]

Who objects to using the death penalty if there is irrefutable proof that the person committed atrocious crimes?

Who wouldn't execute John Wayne Gacy, an admitted murderer/rapists with dozens of his victim's bodies buried on his property? I couldn't see a better area where the DP should be used.

Would you anti-DP people have supported the execution of Hitler or Stalin if they had been in the hands of capable authorities?

[Imran Siddiqui]

since society's morality as codified by laws is the only thing we should concern ourselves with then could you please clarify yourself on this statement some

When did I say society's morality is the only thing we should concern ourselves with? Society's morality is the only thing we should concern ourselves with when dealing with what should be right and wrong in SOCIETY! As much as I love getting words put into my mouth, it's getting tired.

As for the statement, retribution of an individual and retribution of the state will lead to that individual dying (well if he engaged in a capital crime), so the end is the same. Therefore when deciding if retribution is correct ever (societally or individually), it is important to look at individual morality, because that is part of the question.

[korn469]

I think we can all agree that individual retriubution is almost always wrong in any organized society, because it turns into unneeded chaos. So if we only worry about retribution as enacted by societies, it seems that if it didn't improve the public safety, or improve public safety more than other methods then it would have no place in the justice system.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Though I thought the argument was whether retribution was right at all, whether done societally or individually. Ramo believes that all retribution is wrong, no matter who it is done by.

Why should the morality of an act, from one person's perspective, change with regard to the identity of the person committing the act? That would negate the point of having an individual morality in the first place.

For most people, when you consider something immoral, you consider it immoral for everyone who does it. People don't get exemptions because their personal morality tells them otherwise. Were this the case, nothing would be immoral.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So if we only worry about retribution as enacted by societies, it seems that if it didn't improve the public safety, or improve public safety more than other methods then it would have no place in the justice system.

Well, the main theoretical reasoning for retribution is that people are moral actors and if they do something that is 'wrong' then they have earned the punishment by his crime. It only restricts punishment to those that have made moral, willing choices in perpetration of their crime.

Practically, retribution is a part of deterrance and incapication. In both reasons there is a hint of 'they deserved it'. You do the crime, you deserve the crime.

[Ben Kenobi]

Dynamic... just as social morality is (which can change with another generation where a majority of them believes in a different morality).

Imran:
So what a society believes at any one time is only right for that society, and that particular time. Restating, what a society believes at any point in time must be right for that society.

Suppose we have a very divided issue, where only a few persons decide the majority. By your system, if these people change their minds every minute, the morality of the society must change as well.

Absurd.

Now, why change the society if what the majority of the people believe is right? Why should we desire change?

Suppose we have a corrupt judge who takes advantage of this absurdity. Let's say he says, "the majority of the people believe that baby eating is right, therefore, there shall be no legal restrictions on baby eating." How do we prove him wrong? Let's say we take a poll and the people vote overwhelmingly against baby eating. Could not the judge say, the morality has shifted since the poll was conducted? You must poll again before I am convinced that the majority of the people currently believe baby eating is wrong. Otherwise, we must agree with the current law.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why should the morality of an act, from one person's perspective, change with regard to the identity of the person committing the act? That would negate the point of having an individual morality in the first place.

Actually that affirms individual morality. The morality of an act changes depending on the person committing the act.

For most people, when you consider something immoral, you consider it immoral for everyone who does it. People don't get exemptions because their personal morality tells them otherwise.

It depends on how you view it. If you view something immoral, yes, you do consider it immoral for everyone else. But what about the person who believes the opposite of you? Who is 'correct'? Neither really. The person's morality which is closest to society's morality has more power behind his individual morality, but it doesn't mean it is more 'right' than someone else's.

Were this the case, nothing would be immoral.

Yep, basically. Nothing is immoral to a person that believes his acts are moral. It is immoral to other people (outside observers).

[korn469]

Well, the main theoretical reasoning for retribution is that people are moral actors and if they do something that is 'wrong' then they have earned the punishment by his crime. It only restricts punishment to those that have made moral, willing choices in perpetration of their crime.

if it only restricted punishment to those people, then ignorance of the laws would be an acceptable defense then correct? If you didn't know you were doing something wrong, you couldn't be willing choosing to do wrong, and therefore you don't deserve punishment correct?

Practically, retribution is a part of deterrance and incapication. In both reasons there is a hint of 'they deserved it'. You do the crime, you deserve the crime

well couldn't you argue that practically deterrance is then part of incapacitation because without the fear of being sent off there would be no deterrence?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Suppose we have a very divided issue, where only a few persons decide the majority. By your system, if these people change their minds every minute, the morality of the society must change as well.

Absurd.

Why is it absurd?

Suppose we have a corrupt judge who takes advantage of this absurdity. Let's say he says, "the majority of the people believe that baby eating is right, therefore, there shall be no legal restrictions on baby eating." How do we prove him wrong? Let's say we take a poll and the people vote overwhelmingly against baby eating. Could not the judge say, the morality has shifted since the poll was conducted? You must poll again before I am convinced that the majority of the people currently believe baby killing is wrong. Otherwise, we must agree with the current law.

If the people really thought his view was immoral, then they could oust him, either by election or impeachment. If they could not oust him and he is like dicatator, then what he says is moral (as I've said, the shifting morality based on people's beliefs only applies in democracies).

Anyway, sleep time. Night.

[Imran Siddiqui]

if it only restricted punishment to those people, then ignorance of the laws would be an acceptable defense then correct? If you didn't know you were doing something wrong, you couldn't be willing choosing to do wrong, and therefore you don't deserve punishment correct?

Yes, the biggest flaw in their theory, IMO.

well couldn't you argue that practically deterrance is then part of incapacitation because without the fear of being sent off there would be no deterrence?

Yes.

[Ben Kenobi]

If the people really thought his view was immoral, then they could oust him, either by election or impeachment. If they could not oust him and he is like dicatator, then what he says is moral (as I've said, the shifting morality based on people's beliefs only applies in democracies).

So long as a person is a dictator, what he does is right?

Why are you even debating over the merits of capital punishment? If Texas wants capital punishment, it must be right, by your position for Texas to execute prisoners.

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by Wycoff
Who objects to using the death penalty if there is irrefutable proof that the person committed atrocious crimes?

Who wouldn't execute John Wayne Gacy, an admitted murderer/rapists with dozens of his victim's bodies buried on his property? I couldn't see a better area where the DP should be used.

Would you anti-DP people have supported the execution of Hitler or Stalin if they had been in the hands of capable authorities?

Some people actually would like to have worse than DP for these people...
But to answer your question: People who don't understand or admit bad people exist and evil things happen. People who think everyone has the right to live "just because". People who can't measure what is equal and what is not. People who don't understand that only reason why they don't want DP is because they feel more for the actual criminal then the criminals victims, they think the criminal is _the_ victim. It is hard for them to understand people are different. Can't think of more right now.
Sure I know everything is luck, and nobody gets to choose what they get when they are born. But that's no excuse to let pshychopaths live. As soon as they touch other people their status go from neutral to negative.

[cinch]

Who wouldn't execute John Wayne Gacy, an admitted murderer/rapists with dozens of his victim's bodies buried on his property? I couldn't see a better area where the DP should be used.

I would not execute him. Did he commit monstrous acts? Of course. Was he beyond rehabilitation? Probably. But if we say that it is okay for the state to kill Gacy, then we have to put into law that the state can kill murderers. And once you do that, you open the door to loopholes and mistakes, resulting in the death of innocents.

It is better to spare the lives of evil men, in order to save the lives of innocent ones, I think.

[Ben Kenobi]

But to answer your question: People who don't understand or admit bad people exist and evil things happen. People who think everyone has the right to live "just because".

tinyp3nis:

I would agree with a right to life, but mostly, can we ever rule out rehabilitation?

cinch:
Well said. I don't agree with all of your premises, but we come to the same conclusion.

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by cinch


I would not execute him. Did he commit monstrous acts? Of course. Was he beyond rehabilitation? Probably. But if we say that it is okay for the state to kill Gacy, then we have to put into law that the state can kill murderers. And once you do that, you open the door to loopholes and mistakes, resulting in the death of innocents.

It is better to spare the lives of evil men, in order to save the lives of innocent ones, I think.

This I have heard many times. What would be better for Gacy then? How about life in prison for innocent person? Or 20 years? 5? Or let him go?
Not even fines are justified if they are given to innocent person. So nobody should be punished ever. Saying death penalty is some special case is weird imo. The door to loopholes is already open, no matter if there is death penalty or not.

You didn't say this, but the point that "he can be realesed later" isn't worth much either, if someone innocent has been inprisoned 20 years and gets realesed later... life effectively ruined anyway. He simply should not been imprisoned in the first place.

I would agree with a right to life, but mostly, can we ever rule out rehabilitation?

Sure, from what I have heard yes. And are you saying that if rehabilitation is possible it should be done everytime for everyone no matter what? You seem to believe that everyone is the same as in everyone is good, unless I am mistaken?