Death penalty is damn right

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Wycoff
It's not irrelevant. Far from it. The permanence of the crime is what makes us consider the crime to be so serious, and it is what justifies the harsher punishment. That's why murder is punished much more severely than simple assault.

It seems like you are advocating "an eye for an eye," which is a rather outdated mode of thought.

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither
For those against the DP, do you think it was wrong to execute war criminals in the late '40s?

Yes.

Besides, not all war criminals were executed. Some got off with just 20 years.

They used to execute people for petty theft. Why is that wrong? Because theft does not merit dying?

Why? Any crime, all crime, undermines the social fabric. Penalty is about protecting society. If even the most minor crime was punishable by death, if the deterrence arguement is even halfway valid, why not use the DP much more extensively? After alkl, its extremely common use in previuous centuries seems to have caused no great long lasting problems.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


That in fact happened in the US during WWII. Except they weren't random people, they were of Japanese heritage.

Thanks for your example, nye.

It didn't just happen in the US.

The same thing happened in Canada. A similar thing happened to many people born in Germany who remained in Britain after Sept '39. Likewise, civilians from combatant powers were rounded up by the Germans and Japanese. Lord only knows what happened in the USSR.

It wasn't for some random reason, although it wasn't for good reasons. The reason it is an issue in the US and Canada is that we recognise and have admitted that it was wrong.

What you are saying is akin to saying that Canada shouldn't have any immigration policy at all, because 100 years ago we had a racist policy targeting Chinese immigrants.

Because a state has abused a power, states should not have those powers.

Welcome to a world of no states. Welcome to the jungle.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by notyoueither
What you are saying is akin to saying that Canada shouldn't have any immigration policy at all, because 100 years ago we had a racist policy targeting Chinese immigrants.

Because a state has abused a power, states should not have those powers.

Welcome to a world of no states. Welcome to the jungle.

nye, you have so much hay that you should start raising horses.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap

Yes.

Really?

Well, if you feel that a guy like Tojo didn't deserve death, then you are at least being consistent.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

nye, you have so much hay that you should start raising horses.

Yes, but do you have an argument to support your ludicrous proposition that all states should lose powers that are abused by one or a few?

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
It seems like you are advocating "an eye for an eye," which is a rather outdated mode of thought.

No, I'm just stating the obvious. The worse society considers a crime, the more harshly it punishes that crime. Murder is considered a terrible crime because its results are irreversable and permanent. That's why it receives the harshest punishment available in any given system, be it the death penalty or life imprisonment. I don't see what is confusing or controversial about this.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by GePap
Who cares?

Justice is about the living, not the dead. The dead, by definition, are no longer part of society. They are no longer an issue in this respect.

I answer that here:

It's not irrelevant. Far from it. The permanence of the crime is what makes us consider the crime to be so serious, and it is what justifies the harsher punishment. That's why murder is punished much more severely than simple assault.

This logic applies regardless of whether the ultimate punishment is death or life imprisonment.

Do you disagree with this explanation? If so, then are you advocating that the punishments for a crime should not take into account the nature of the crime committed? Should bygones be bygones, and the only matter considered relevant in criminal proceedings be the rehabilitation of the criminal?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Wycoff
Do you disagree with this explanation? If so, then are you advocating that the punishments for a crime should not take into account the nature of the crime committed? Should bygones be bygones, and the only matter considered relevant in criminal proceedings be the rehabilitation of the criminal?

A lot of crimes are permanent. You could assult someone and permanently make them crippled. You could steal some beloved item from someone, making them lose it permanently.

As for the notion of the punishment taking the crime into account: why should it?

Punishment is not about rehabilitation. It is about power, it is about society asserting its control over individuals through fear. As such, the punishment being relative to the crime has more to do with keeping a social balance than any underlying morality to "eye for an eye". if all punishment is too harsh, individuals revolt against the system, hence not all crimes should be punished as harshly as possible. It becomes creating a balance of terror, keeping people afraid of breaking the rules without making them so afraid of the system as to risk destroying it.

Again, and I have asked this before: 200 years ago, stealing a horse meant the death penalty. Was this excessive? Of justified? Why should death, if it is a valid penalty, be reserved for just a minimal number of crimes, crimes so relatively rare that the DP becomes a fraction of penalties? To me that seems a hypocritical stance- if the DP is a fine alternative, why not use it more widely?

I love Nietzsche's explination of punishment and how it related to power. Weak societies use punishment to protect themselves. The weaker the society, the greater the fear, and the harsher the punishment. Stronger societies know a crminal won;t make them collapse, so they can impose less punishment because they are less fearfull. An omnipotent society would not punish but instead be utterly magnanimous, for the criminal is so powerless as to be insignificant, and punishment loses meaning.

I am all for becoming less fearful.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by GePap
A lot of crimes are permanent. You could assult someone and permanently make them crippled. You could steal some beloved item from someone, making them lose it permanently.

Your examples are true, but they don't measure up to the ultimate finality of taking someone's life. A crippled person is still alive; a person from whom a valuable item was stolen is still alive. In our society, death is seen as the worst possible result from an action (though this doesn't hold true for all cultures). That's why it gets the worst punishment.

Besides, I'm sure that an attacker who permanently cripples their victim would get a stiffer punishment than the attacker who doesn't cripple his victim, be it through a harsher charge (like aggravated assault or attempted murder) or through a sentence on the high end of the assault scale.

As for the notion of the punishment taking the crime into account: why should it?

Because it's logical, and it makes it easier to more equitably punish people for their crimes (in theory). Society sees some crimes as being worse than others (and does so for a variety of reasons, permanence of the crime commited being but one reason for this). Taking that as a given, it only makes sense to punish them accordingly. If punishments didn't have to take the crime into account, then you could have one person in one court getting 85 years in prison for petty theft from a harsh judge, while another person in the next county over gets 2 years imprisonment for murder from a lenient judge. Sentencing guidelines have been created to prevent this situation. Would a system that didn't take the nature of the crim commited into account be a better system than the one we have now, in which certain crimes are treated as being more severe than others and are punished accordingly? It doesn't seem so to me.

Punishing without regard to crime seems dangerous to me, as it would do less to deter major crimes (a person who may have been deterred from murdering someone when he was sure to receive life imprisonment or death would be much less likely to be deterred if he would receive a 1 year prison sentence), almost certainly resulting in a rise in of vigilantism.

Again, and I have asked this before: 200 years ago, stealing a horse meant the death penalty. Was this excessive? Of justified?

Yes, from our perspective it is excessive. Societies and their values change over time. I've never argued that they haven't changed. They had different ideologies and social norms in the past, norms that we don't share. Each generation defines its norms. 200 years from now, some of our norms and ideologies will look strange and barbaric. What's your point?

Why should death, if it is a valid penalty, be reserved for just a minimal number of crimes, crimes so relatively rare that the DP becomes a fraction of penalties? To me that seems a hypocritical stance- if the DP is a fine alternative, why not use it more widely?

Because we think that punishment should fit the crime. The murderer has done society a grevious, permanent harm by removing another member of that society; the thief's action was much less harmful society. Executing a petty theif seems disproportionately unjust.

Furthermore, a person who would commit murder under the current system is almost certainly a more dangerous and less rehabilatable person than the kid who steals an X-Box. This is because killing carries a much stiffer punishment than does petty theft; therefore, theft would be less of a risk. Only the people willing to potentially sacrifice their lives are willing to kill. People willing to sacrifice their lives to kill someone else are likely to be more hardened individuals, and thus far less likely to be salvagable. By executing every kid who stole an X-Box, you're likely to be throwing away thousands of lives that could be salvagable. When executing murderers, you're probably only executing a few salvagable ones... the others are irredeemable. I don't weep for the salvagable murderers, because they chose to commit the crime.

I love Nietzsche's explination of punishment and how it related to power. Weak societies use punishment to protect themselves. The weaker the society, the greater the fear, and the harsher the punishment. Stronger societies know a crminal won;t make them collapse, so they can impose less punishment because they are less fearfull. An omnipotent society would not punish but instead be utterly magnanimous, for the criminal is so powerless as to be insignificant, and punishment loses meaning.

It sounds like a fairytale to me. Any society that was so magnanimous that it would not require punishment would logically have overcome human nature to such an extent that there would be no crime. Otherwise, individual citizens in that "omnipotent society" would eventually take matter into their own hands, because individuals would still feel wronged. The absurdity of the last brings the validity of the preceeding lines into question.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Wycoff


Your examples are true, but they don't measure up to the ultimate finality of taking someone's life. A crippled person is still alive; a person from whom a valuable item was stolen is still alive. In our society, death is seen as the worst possible result from an action (though this doesn't hold true for all cultures). That's why it gets the worst punishment.

Except that is not correct. Only some deaths get the DP. A man who knowingly gets into a car drunk and crashes into a bus full of kids, killing all of them will in most states get a form of manslaughter, certainly not the DP. Heck, I could be the boss of a chemical plant and through my neglience allow an accident that kills hundreds...and I won;t get the DP.

Besides, I'm sure that an attacker who permanently cripples their victim would get a stiffer punishment than the attacker who doesn't cripple his victim, be it through a harsher charge (like aggravated assault or attempted murder) or through a sentence on the high end of the assault scale.

The higher charges are based more on intent than the results of the crime.

Because it's logical, and it makes it easier to more equitably punish people for their crimes (in theory). Society sees some crimes as being worse than others (and does so for a variety of reasons, permanence of the crime commited being but one reason for this). Taking that as a given, it only makes sense to punish them accordingly. If punishments didn't have to take the crime into account, then you could have one person in one court getting 85 years in prison for petty theft from a harsh judge, while another person in the next county over gets 2 years imprisonment for murder from a lenient judge. Sentencing guidelines have been created to prevent this situation. Is that a better system than the one we have now, in which certain crimes are treated as being more severe than others and are punished accordingly? It doesn't seem so to me.

The whole notion of "punishment fitting the crime" is not inherently correct. It is a viewpoint, an opinion. An opinion that all crime should be punished equally harshly is as valid, depending on how well it is argued.

As for "sentincing guidelines", since each crime is singular in nature, guidelines will sometimes create absurd results, much as "3 strikes laws" for example create some sentences that seem to break your principles.

Punishing without regard to crime seems dangerous to me, as it would do less to deter major crimes (a person who may have been deterred from murdering someone when he was sure to receive life imprisonment or death would be much less likely to be deterred if he would receive a 1 year prison sentence), almost certainly resulting in a rise in of vigilantism.

Major crimes are minimal compared to all crimes, and besides, when it comes to crime, a small portion of the populatiopn commits most crimes. If you exterminate them early on when they were just thiefs, they don;t get to become murders. Therefore, all inclusive DP would seem a sensible solution, no? Exterminate the criminal element in society.....

Yes, from our perspective it is excessive. Societies and their values change over time. I've never argued that they haven't changed. They had different ideologies and social norms in the past, norms that we don't share. Each generation defines its norms. 200 years from now, some of our norms and ideologies will look strange and barbaric. What's your point?

One does not have to wait 200 years to have people look at America's norms and find them barbaric and strange. On top oif that, if the moral and ethical basis for the DP is sound, 200 years, nor 2000 years should make a difference in whether it is right or not.

Because we think that punishment should fit the crime. The murderer has done society a grevious, permanent harm by removing another member of that society; the thief's action was much less harmful society. Such disproportionate punishment seems unjust.

And the executioner does so as well, removing a member of society permanetly. Adn as for the thief, since punishment is handed out by society, why should society not take the hard line and say that any action that hurts society is unforgiveable and must be dealt with unflinching terror?

Furthermore, a person who would commit murder under the current system is almost certainly a more dangerous and less rehabilatable person than the kid who steals an X-Box. This is because killing carries a much stiffer punishment than does petty theft; therefore, theft would be less of a risk. Only the people willing to potentially sacrifice their lives are willing to kill. People willing to sacrifice their lives to kill someone else are likely to be more hardened individuals, and thus far less likely to be salvagable. By executing every kid who stole an X-Box, you're likely to be throwing away thousands of lives that could be salvagable. When executing murderers, you're probably only executing a few salvagable ones... the others are irredeemable. I don't weep for the salvagable murderers, because they chose to commit the crime.

Few criminals expect to get caught, ever. If life in prison does not deter you, the DP certainly won't, as the base assumption is that you won;t get caught.

As for your statement about murderers, only a few murders today are even elligible for the DP-most murders are not, simply by being crimes of passion, and by definiton the person might be able to rehabilitate. Only a limited number of crimes are even considered, which again should draw us to those crimes. Its not murder per say that leads to the DP in the US, only certain crimes. The arguement is better served by focusing solely on the minimal slate of murders elligible for the DP.

It sounds like a fairytale to me. Any society that was so magnanimous that it would not require punishment would logically have overcome human nature to such an extent that there would be no crime. Otherwise, individual citizens in that "omnipotent society" would eventually take matter into their own hands, because individuals would still feel wronged. The absurdity of the last brings the validity of the preceeding lines into question.

If individuals live in an omnipotent society, how could they be wronged? That is the point, the more power you have, the less fear, hence the lesser need for punishment.

And the fact is we have seen this in action. The State and society today are immensely more powerful in all aspect than those 200 years ago, and punishments today are far less harsh than they used to be.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by GePap
Except that is not correct. Only some deaths get the DP. A man who knowingly gets into a car drunk and crashes into a bus full of kids, killing all of them will in most states get a form of manslaughter, certainly not the DP. Heck, I could be the boss of a chemical plant and through my neglience allow an accident that kills hundreds...and I won;t get the DP.

This discrepency is because of this:

The higher charges are based more on intent than the results of the crime.

Even though this isn't strictly true. There are examples where results matter as much or more than intent. Felony murder is one of them.

However, the discrepencies you're describing here are because of intent. Intent is another element that society weighs while rendering punishments, and is weighed along with permanence (remember, I said that permanence of action was but one element). Though their actions resulted in permanent loss to society, the intent was lacking to make them as contemptable as the intentional murderer.

Even still, this doesn't diminish the importance of permanence to sentencing. The drunk driver could get murder 2 for his killings, a much stiffer sentence than if he merely injured the children. The factory owner could get negligent homicide, possibly even manslaughter or murder 2 for his actions, sentences that are worse than if he merely caused property damage. Even though the prerequisite intent for murder 1 was lacking, these men still could go to jail for decades because of the fact that they killed others.

The whole notion of "punishment fitting the crime" is not inherently correct. It is a viewpoint, an opinion. An opinion that all crime should be punished equally harshly is as valid, depending on how well it is argued.

I agree, but I'd be surprised to see a truly persuasive argument for treating all crimes the same.

As for "sentincing guidelines", since each crime is singular in nature, guidelines will sometimes create absurd results, much as "3 strikes laws" for example create some sentences that seem to break your principles.

Current system isn't totally perfect. 3 strike laws wouldn't necessarily violate the principal of the worse the crime, the worse the punishment... it simply adds a corollary to it that repeatedly breaking the crime magnifies your overall detrimental effect on society.

Major crimes are minimal compared to all crimes, and besides, when it comes to crime, a small portion of the populatiopn commits most crimes. If you exterminate them early on when they were just thiefs, they don;t get to become murders. Therefore, all inclusive DP would seem a sensible solution, no? Exterminate the criminal element in society.....

I know you're playing devil's advocate here, but this is pretty shaky. Not all thieves become murderers, especially when given the chance for rehabilitation at an early age. Why throw away potentially productive people for relatively minor crimes? For some, murder is their initial crime, meaning that executing theives wouldn't have prevented their crimes. Being massively overbroad with criminal extermination plans would be far more of a loss for society than a gain.

One does not have to wait 200 years to have people look at America's norms and find them barbaric and strange. On top oif that, if the moral and ethical basis for the DP is sound, 200 years, nor 2000 years should make a difference in whether it is right or not.

1. Who knows how things will progress in 200 years? Maybe our current world's leniency and mercy will be seen as weakness.

2. This depends on whether there is such a thing as absolute morality. If there is, then it depends upon what those absolte morals are. I think that D.P.'s moral ground is arguably consistent. Afterall, your example of executing horsethieves only points out a question of when it should be applied, not whether it is absolutely right or wrong. If there's no absolute morality, then its a pointless question.

And the executioner does so as well, removing a member of society permanetly.

The murderer starts the process of removing himself from society through his actions. The executioner finishes the job..

Adn as for the thief, since punishment is handed out by society, why should society not take the hard line and say that any action that hurts society is unforgiveable and must be dealt with unflinching terror?

A society could do that if it chose. I think it would waste resources and be counterproductive (for reasons I explained above), but it could conceivably happen.

If individuals live in an omnipotent society, how could they be wronged? That is the point, the more power you have, the less fear, hence the lesser need for punishment.

And the fact is we have seen this in action. The State and society today are immensely more powerful in all aspect than those 200 years ago, and punishments today are far less harsh than they used to be.

I think that punishments would only become non-existant if crime became non-existant. I cannot imagine a society in which there would be crimes, but no punishments. This logic seems to have more to do with human nature itself. Society can only become strong enough to eliminate the phenomenon of crime if we evolve past being human. The fear doesn't totally come from societal instability; the fear also comes from inborn human frailties. If your society is still too weak to control the human impulses that lead to crime, then it's going to be too weak to overcome the human impulses that desire wrongs created by those crimes to be righted. That's why I think it sounds like a fairytale. It's true to a point, but it it cannot totally become true until we become more than human.

[GePap]

Since I hate parcel posting:

On the issue of permanence- Permanence is not a standard used to judge a crime. Look at the penal law itself- there are certainly statements in there about what kind of intent is necessary, but I have not seem anything about judging a crime differently based on "permanence" of the crime.

That is why killing, which is always permanent,varies greatly in possible punishment.

On the issue of applying the death penalty widely: What loss is it to society to lose the criminal element? Rehabilitation is only on possible aim of a crminal justice system, with punishment being the more common one. What makes one assume there is such a thing as real rehabilitation? And besides, why should people even be given the chance? If they conspire against society, does not society have the right to eliminate them? Since exile and banishment are not feaseable punishments, extermination works just as well.

As for the logical basis of the DP. That is where I have an issue. The DP initself is logical in a variety of settngs, but if you have a system in which individual life is seen as paramount (like ours), then the DP runs into problems, because you must argue for the primacy of society in order to justify society breaking the notion of the paramount status of human life, while then saying that this societal primacy only applies in X limited cases. I don't view such a position as very strong because it can be attacked based on the loopholes in the exemptions made to allow for the DP.

And as for Nietzsche, he was talking about overcoming "human" nature.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by GePap
Since I hate parcel posting:
On the issue of permanence- Permanence is not a standard used to judge a crime. Look at the penal law itself- there are certainly statements in there about what kind of intent is necessary, but I have not seem anything about judging a crime differently based on "permanence" of the crime. That is why killing, which is always permanent,varies greatly in possible punishment.

It's implicit. Though different types of killing receive different punishments (because of other factors, like intent), homicide crimes always have the highest punishment for their category of crimes. I contend that this is because the outcome of a human death is considered to be the worst possible outcome of a situation in our society, and that is because death is treated as permanent and total.

For crimes of premeditation, are there any sentences that there any greater punishment than the sentence imposed with murder 1? For crimes of passion or recklessness, are there any sentences that carry greater punishments than that of Murder 2? For crimes of negligence, are there any crimes that give higher sentences than involuntary manslaughter? I can't think of any right now.

Crimes dealing with taking people's lives are punished more harshly than their equivalents that merely injure the person or their property.

On the issue of applying the death penalty widely: What loss is it to society to lose the criminal element?

I think that people have to establish themselves to become part of the "criminal element." If you get to people early and rehabilitate them, then they don't graduate into the criminal element grouping. In fact, I'd only consider the unsalvagables to be the "criminal element," and I have no problem eliminating them.

Catching people before they become unsalvage is crucial, because that's one more productive citizen and one less member of the criminal element.

Rehabilitation is only on possible aim of a crminal justice system, with punishment being the more common one. What makes one assume there is such a thing as real rehabilitation? And besides, why should people even be given the chance?

1. Anecdotal evidence. It's something supported by studies
2. They should be given a chance because, after they have been rehabilitated and served their punishment, then they owe nothing more to society. They can go out and be productive and add to the net value of society. Only the people who do truly terrible things, like those who intentionally murder people, have done something so grave that they cannot pay back society.

If they conspire against society, does not society have the right to eliminate them?

A society could, but, like I said, it would be too wasteful.
You're snuffing out too many potentially salvagable and productive people to get rid of the truly hardcore, unsalvagable criminals.

As for the logical basis of the DP. That is where I have an issue. The DP initself is logical in a variety of settngs, but if you have a system in which individual life is seen as paramount (like ours), then the DP runs into problems, because you must argue for the primacy of society in order to justify society breaking the notion of the paramount status of human life, while then saying that this societal primacy only applies in X limited cases. I don't view such a position as very strong because it can be attacked based on the loopholes in the exemptions made to allow for the DP.

I see and understand your logical problem. That's why I can sympathize with the life imprisonment only people. It's not much of a problem for me, because I believe that there's only a rebuttable presuption that you have the right to live. You can do things that take away that presumption. Society sets what those actions are. That's why they change over time. I realize that I'm in the minority with this one.

And as for Nietzsche, he was talking about overcoming "human" nature.

Good. I'm happy to see that I figured out the puzzle this late at night.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Yes, but do you have an argument to support your ludicrous proposition that all states should lose powers that are abused by one or a few?

It looks like you have gotten this backwards.

The proper framing should be: why should a state be given the ultimate power over a human being's life when such power can, will be, and has been abused?