Are people who believe in the Death Penalty by definition Evil?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by notyoueither
When did your personal choice of punishment enter into it? You don't get a choice. A judge passes a sentence based on guidelines of the law and justice. Justice would include impact on the family of victims, but not their personal heart's desire.

Because you said that the purpose of the death penalty was its positive effect on interested parties.

The problem is that it won't have a positive effect on some of them, and will have a negative effect on others. If you are going to make this your reason for the death penalty, then its hard to deny cases in which efficiency is increased by tailoring the punishment to the desires of those who are supposed to benefit from it. After all, judges have considerable leeway in sentencing to allow them some degree of efficiency maximization in meting out punishments for reasons of deterrence. Why should it be any different in the case of victims' families? The problem is that victims' families are not impartial in the way that judges are, and the punishments that would result would be rather variant and arbitrary.

Moreover, putting someone to death simply because it would make someone else or society feel better seems a weak justification.

Besides... if you are made to feel better by the death of someone else, there's clearly something wrong with you. And unfortunately, as history has shown us, many human beings derive sadistic pleasure from the practice of punishment. Those are the DP supporters who are evil.

But the key problem is:

Even apart from the problems above, retributivists have yet to construct a nonarbitrary way of deciding what sentence the guilty offender deserves as punishment.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/punishment/#2

The best cases for the DP rely on retributivist justifications, and these suffer from this terrible problem. At least with the utilitarian theories of punishment the problems are mainly practical.

[Agathon]

One thing that I think that DP proponents often leave out is the fact that many third parties love executions. They used to be a public sport back in the day, but even now you'll get a stack of people who will party outside one.

That's sick.

[Berzerker]

If I try to murder you and you kill me in self-defense, are you evil? If I succeed and you are dead, why would your loved ones reward me for my success by feeding me the rest of my life?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Berzerker
If I try to murder you and you kill me in self-defense, are you evil? If I succeed and you are dead, why would your loved ones reward me for my success by feeding me the rest of my life?

Killing in self defence is only usually justified when unavoidable (or at least when the defender reasonably believed it to be unavoidable). It seems hard to find a justification for it in other circumstances.

Are you defending the DP Berz? I find it weird that a Libertarian would grant the state the right to kill anyone, considering the Libertarian obsession with governmental abuse of power.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Sava
The only legitimate argument against the Death Penalty is the moral one... i.e. if you think killing someone as punishment is wrong... PERIOD.

Well done Sava. When present with real-life examples that challenge your theory, blind denial of the facts coupled with a diva-like flouncing out of the thread is probably your best bet.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Berzerker
If I succeed and you are dead, why would your loved ones reward me for my success by feeding me the rest of my life?

Probably in the hope that you really won't enjoy a life in prison, and they'll probably be right on that point.

[Kull]

I think we could logically come up with an easy solution to all these seemingly unsolvable problems. Just pass a new law called "Step up to the plate". And it works very easily. Those who strongly oppose a particular law can take control of the situation themselves. In this case, the next guy who gets sentenced to death, instead of the Big House, he goes to live at Agathon's house. Ag is now reponsible in perpetuity for providing this guy with three hots and a cot and ensuring he doesn't wander outside the premises. It shouldn't be that hard to pull off, seriously. If there's only a 100 DPs per year and lets say 100,000 Agathons, you guys can all chip in and share expenses. Should be quite doable. And think how good you'll feel! Instead of powerless whining on Internet sites, you are actually doing something! How can that be bad?

And there's no reason to limit this to the DP. It would work for those who oppose prison for drug offenses or anything else - pedophiles, whale killers, Martha Stewart , whatever. As a taxpayer, I think this is awesome and would vote for it in a heartbeat. But lefties can vote for it too, because it also applies to kookie right wing causes. Oppose abortion? No problem - your name is the list for the 1,000,000,000 plus fetuses a year. Opt out and you've lost the moral capacity to march outside clinics with signs. The clinics can keep spare lists on hand, so any protestor who shows up instead gets all the fetii he/she can carry.

Of course the same is true for those who oppose the Death Penalty "in theory" (i.e. willing to fob off the consequences on others.) Won't house 'em? You have nothing to say and no one to say it too because EVERYBODY knows you're just a hypocrite who won't "Step up to the Plate".

[Berzerker]

Killing in self defence is only usually justified when unavoidable (or at least when the defender reasonably believed it to be unavoidable). It seems hard to find a justification for it in other circumstances.

The DP derives its justification from the victim's right to self-defense.

Are you defending the DP Berz? I find it weird that a Libertarian would grant the state the right to kill anyone, considering the Libertarian obsession with governmental abuse of power.

I can argue for either position, but the state has a "right" to kill because we have the right to kill in self-defense. It doesn't matter if the state kills long after the fact, the perp would have been dead if the self-defense met with success. Letting the murderer live rewards him for being a successful murderer...

Probably in the hope that you really won't enjoy a life in prison, and they'll probably be right on that point.

Then leave it up to them, I cant imagine the feeling one must have knowing they're working to keep the scum who murdered their loved one well fed and watching TV.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Berzerker

I can argue for either position, but the state has a "right" to kill because we have the right to kill in self-defense. It doesn't matter if the state kills long after the fact, the perp would have been dead if the self-defense met with success. Letting the murderer live rewards him for being a successful murderer...

Nope, it doesn´t reward him if he spends the rest of his whole life locked up in prison.

I don´t think there are many successful murderers who plan (or like) to spend the rest of their lifes this way

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Kull
I think we could logically come up with an easy solution to all these seemingly unsolvable problems. Just pass a new law called "Step up to the plate". And it works very easily. Those who strongly oppose a particular law can take control of the situation themselves. In this case, the next guy who gets sentenced to death, instead of the Big House, he goes to live at Agathon's house. Ag is now reponsible in perpetuity for providing this guy with three hots and a cot and ensuring he doesn't wander outside the premises. It shouldn't be that hard to pull off, seriously. If there's only a 100 DPs per year and lets say 100,000 Agathons, you guys can all chip in and share expenses. Should be quite doable. And think how good you'll feel! Instead of powerless whining on Internet sites, you are actually doing something! How can that be bad?
.

Cool beans. And, of course, we could present vocal pro-DP voices with the bill for all prosecution costs in pursuing the case through all those years on death row too. You'll step up to the plate, won't you?

[Kull]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


Cool beans. And, of course, we could present vocal pro-DP voices with the bill for all prosecution costs in pursuing the case through all those years on death row too. You'll step up to the plate, won't you?

First of all you assume I'm pro-DP without a shred of evidence. I'm simply proposing an alternative to just whining about it. Secondly. the concept is a way for opponents of a particular law to actively DO something with their opposition. We already have a system for putting laws on the book and dealing with the consequences of them being there. As taxpayers, we all "step up to the plate" by paying for that.

Besides, now there won't be huge costs associated with anti-DP court appeals wending their way thru the court. The reason? All the former residents of Death Row will be ensconced on Agathon's couch watching television. The only "death" they'll be in danger of is one arising as a side effect of over-eating.

[Jon Miller]

There are some actions that death should be the result of. The death penalty is the state's way of acheiving this result.

JM

[Jon Miller]

the only argument that makes sense against the DP is that the state often ****s up

JM

[Odin]

Originally posted by Agathon


Killing in self defence is only usually justified when unavoidable (or at least when the defender reasonably believed it to be unavoidable). It seems hard to find a justification for it in other circumstances.

Are you defending the DP Berz? I find it weird that a Libertarian would grant the state the right to kill anyone, considering the Libertarian obsession with governmental abuse of power.

Libertarians are anarcho-capitalists who want protection from thier slaves, so it doesn't suprise me that Berz supports the DP one bit.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon


Because you said that the purpose of the death penalty was its positive effect on interested parties.

The problem is that it won't have a positive effect on some of them, and will have a negative effect on others. If you are going to make this your reason for the death penalty, then its hard to deny cases in which efficiency is increased by tailoring the punishment to the desires of those who are supposed to benefit from it.

Tailoring?

No. Justice is not a suit off the rack that you have cut to fit.

Rather, judges should take into account the impact of sentences on victims and their families. They do, as we speak. Only death has been taken off the table.

After all, judges have considerable leeway in sentencing to allow them some degree of efficiency maximization in meting out punishments for reasons of deterrence. Why should it be any different in the case of victims' families? The problem is that victims' families are not impartial in the way that judges are, and the punishments that would result would be rather variant and arbitrary.

Indeed. And that is why our judges take into account impact on victims, but do not give victims, or their families, a blank cheque in sentencing.

Moreover, putting someone to death simply because it would make someone else or society feel better seems a weak justification.

I don't agree.

First there is the case of the parents of murdered children not being tortured by tid bits of the details of their childrens' deaths.

Second, a cop or child murderer being brought to real justice is not a weak justification.

Besides... if you are made to feel better by the death of someone else, there's clearly something wrong with you. And unfortunately, as history has shown us, many human beings derive sadistic pleasure from the practice of punishment. Those are the DP supporters who are evil.

Nice try, but no dice.

I am talking about people who are the surviving victims of the worst sorts of crimes.

That Clifford Olsen is alive to taunt the parents with details of the deaths of their children from the safety of the federal prison system is an injustice of the worst sort.

Far from the victims wishing him dead for sadistic reasons, his victims are dead and can wish no harm to him. What reasonable people would seek is that an end be put to an existance that only Satan could love.