|
Post by John E on May 9, 2009 23:04:19 GMT -5
No. I repeat: you can always make amends to a man you have wronged. You cannot restore life to a man you have killed. How do you make amends for taking away a man's ability to watch his children grow up? How do you make amends for taking away his ability to attend his parents' funerals? How do you make amends for any other of the countless aspects of his life you have robbed him of? The simple answer is: You can't. No matter how hard you try, it is impossible to make amends for robbing someone of a huge chunk of their life. And yet you and Lithp seem to be making the argument that you can make amends for a crime by taking it out on the criminal.
|
|
|
Post by Yaezakura on May 9, 2009 23:07:03 GMT -5
So, obviously, we're better off robbing them of the whole thing. In many cases, yes, it may actually be better. Unless the revised verdict happens within a few years of imprisonment, it may very well have been better to simply have killed the person. What good can come from releasing a 70 year old man into a world he doesn't remember? One where his entire family spend decades thinking of him as a murderer? One where he has no friends and no livelihood? There is no good in that. The scenario is far more unsettling to me than the idea of an innocent man dying.
|
|
|
Post by John E on May 9, 2009 23:09:59 GMT -5
So, obviously, we're better off robbing them of the whole thing. In many cases, yes, it may actually be better. Unless the revised verdict happens within a few years of imprisonment, it may very well have been better to simply have killed the person. What good can come from releasing a 70 year old man into a world he doesn't remember? One where his entire family spend decades thinking of him as a murderer? One where he has no friends and no livelihood? There is no good in that. The scenario is far more unsettling to me than the idea of an innocent man dying. But not everyone will feel the same way. Maybe we should give the convict a choice, life in prison or death.
|
|
|
Post by Yaezakura on May 9, 2009 23:10:49 GMT -5
And yet you and Lithp seem to be making the argument that you can make amends for a crime by taking it out on the criminal. I've never claimed the justice system makes amends, in any way. It doesn't, and was never intended to. It exists to punish criminal offenders and protect the greater society. Neither of which it does very effectively at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by John E on May 9, 2009 23:12:34 GMT -5
And yet you and Lithp seem to be making the argument that you can make amends for a crime by taking it out on the criminal. I've never claimed the justice system makes amends, in any way. It doesn't, and was never intended to. It exists to punish criminal offenders and protect the greater society. Neither of which it does very effectively at the moment. Define the word "punish." EDIT: In other words, what is the purpose of punishment (or what should it be)?
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on May 9, 2009 23:14:04 GMT -5
Tiger, the thing is, YOU feel that amends can be made for wrongful imprisonment. The person who was actually imprisoned might not. When I say "make amends", I don't mean "make everything 100% OK". I mean that you can try to set things right instead of just saying "oops". I could, but I don't. If someone is cleared after 30 years in jail, you can let them live out their last few years as a free man. If someone is cleared 30 years after being executed, they're still dead. I don't agree with the idea of justice. I think it's just a fancy word for revenge. I take a utilitarian view of punishment, that it's only deserved if it in some way prevents future crimes. I consider it acceptable for a few innocent men to be imprisoned in order to maintain rule of law. I don't consider it acceptable for innocents to be executed.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on May 9, 2009 23:19:19 GMT -5
Tiger: Again, YOU feel that way. YOUR feelings are not the question, when it comes to making amends to someone.
Erickson: I am not saying that it makes amends for anything, just that it's what they deserve and, with the current system, knowing that the person got what they deserved is the best the victims are going to get.
|
|
|
Post by Yaezakura on May 9, 2009 23:19:31 GMT -5
Define the word "punish." EDIT: In other words, what is the purpose of punishment (or what should it be)? Ideally, a punishment would cause the receiver not to commit the act that he was punished for again in the future, due to fear of further punishments. The punishment should also act as an initial deterrent for wrongdoing. Of course, finding any punishment that works 100% of the time is impossible. We simply have to do the best we can. However, our current system of punishment amounts to little more than a stay at the same motel as a rowdy biker gang. It's not a very effective deterrent.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on May 9, 2009 23:21:37 GMT -5
Tiger: Again, YOU feel that way. YOUR feelings are not the question, when it comes to making amends to someone. So, obviously, we're better off robbing them of the whole thing. In many cases, yes, it may actually be better. Unless the revised verdict happens within a few years of imprisonment, it may very well have been better to simply have killed the person. What good can come from releasing a 70 year old man into a world he doesn't remember? One where his entire family spend decades thinking of him as a murderer? One where he has no friends and no livelihood? There is no good in that. The scenario is far more unsettling to me than the idea of an innocent man dying. See, I'm the opposite. I would rather live. I agree with Erickson that it should be left up to the person in question. Edit: Also, this is the first time I've heard someone say that we should execute criminals because it's more humane.
|
|
|
Post by John E on May 10, 2009 0:28:31 GMT -5
Define the word "punish." EDIT: In other words, what is the purpose of punishment (or what should it be)? Ideally, a punishment would cause the receiver not to commit the act that he was punished for again in the future, due to fear of further punishments. The punishment should also act as an initial deterrent for wrongdoing. Of course, finding any punishment that works 100% of the time is impossible. We simply have to do the best we can. However, our current system of punishment amounts to little more than a stay at the same motel as a rowdy biker gang. It's not a very effective deterrent. I agree. The purpose of punishment is to keep the offense from happening again. I also agree that our current system doesn't do that very well. I disagree on the reason though. It seems to be that the reason is that our prison system does nothing to rehabilitate criminals or help them get back on their feet once they're out. Furthermore, they are victimized by each other in prison. The end result is a more violent criminal with even less ability to support himself legally than before. That's why I'm saying that out justice system should be more focussed on rehabilitation than simply giving criminals an unpleasant experience. Another thing, how does the death penalty prevent further crimes any better than life imprisonment does? As I understand it, there isn't even any good evidence that the death penalty is an effective deterrent. What then is its purpose?
|
|
|
Post by John E on May 10, 2009 0:34:44 GMT -5
Erickson: I am not saying that it makes amends for anything, just that it's what they deserve and, with the current system, knowing that the person got what they deserved is the best the victims are going to get. Yes, but you are willing to accept that, but dismiss the idea that having someone spend time in prison for a crime they didn't commit is significantly better than someone being killed for a crime they didn't commit. And I'm still not convinced that victims (families of murder victims, for instance) are happier or psychologically healthier in the long run if their victimizer is killed. Does your entire endorsement of the death penalty boil down to that people get a visceral satisfaction from seeing their victimizer killed, and that that's a good thing?
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on May 10, 2009 9:32:16 GMT -5
If anyone's interested, here is a link with the translation of the code of Hammurabi. The 'eye for an eye' starts at 196. It's worth noting that equalivent retribution is actually used in a minority of cases, and is based on social standings of the people involved. In fact, if you look at rules 204 and 206, both are restitution rather than retribution between equals for cases of simple assault.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on May 10, 2009 22:47:21 GMT -5
Letting the criminal decide is sort of nonsensical. Why should they get what they want? It's the death penalty, not the death privelage not to accept. (I couldn't think of a better wording--I did try.)
Whether or not the victims are psychologically healthier as a result is a matter for [another] debate, but the way I see it, they would be, simply because they had some kind of closure.
I'm not arguing that wrongful imprisonment isn't as bad, I'm saying that the justification is flimsy. In a perfect world, there wouldn't be wrongful accusations. But the world isn't perfect. Why should the system, as a whole, change because of the most minute fraction of error? This sounds cold. I am aware of that. But, honestly, the punishment should be carried out under the assumption that the sentencing was accurate. If the sentencing is a problem, then it is the legal system that should be called into question. And, as has been pointed out numerous times, criminals on death row can appeal right up until the very day the sentence is carried out. It's not a perfect system. It never will be. The point is to try and get the right person.
Now, as to your--question--about why I endorse the death penalty, why would you oppose it? From the example you outlined earlier, you yourself seem to see murder as an irredemible act which can never be justified, and any penalty offered would actually be too merciful. So then, what is the point in rehabilitating a murderer? They would get access to life, something they felt the need to take from someone else, and from the way you speak, I don't think you'd even want it to happen.
From a simply logical standpoint, I don't see why you oppose the death penalty, except for in cases where the person turns out to be innocent. My response to this is, of course, that reality sucks, but it makes no sense to remove the penalty for the minority of cases where the person is innocent. If I was arguing against incarceration, you would most likely say the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by John E on May 10, 2009 23:23:57 GMT -5
Whether or not the victims are psychologically healthier as a result is a matter for [another] debate, but the way I see it, they would be, simply because they had some kind of closure. The way I see it, they wouldn't, because I don't think revenge is a healthy inclination or one that leads to long term happiness. But neither of us have any evidence to support our points of view. And they way I see it, you are willing to put people to death based on an unsupported assumption. The point is to protect the public from harm. If the murderer can be rehabilitated into a productive, non-violent member of society then not only is the public protected, as they would be with the death penalty, but they would benefit from the ex-murderer's productivity, something the death penalty could never do. Not a fair comparison. Given two potential penalties that work equally well (death penalty and life imprisonment do an equally good job of protecting the public) where one of them can be undone (to some extent) if the convict is later found to be innocent but the other can't (to any extent), the former should be preferred. I oppose the death penalty for several reasons, not the least of which is that I care more about reducing crime than about "giving people what they deserve," and it seems to me that the death penalty at best does nothing to reduce crime that life imprisonment does not and at worst, contributes to higher murder rates. I am also opposed to the idea of retribution in general. I don't think it's a moral goal or desire. Now that I've answered your question, will you please answer mine? Does your entire endorsement of the death penalty boil down to that people get a visceral satisfaction from seeing their victimizer killed, and that that's a good thing?
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on May 10, 2009 23:53:22 GMT -5
Letting the criminal decide is sort of nonsensical. Why should they get what they want? It's the death penalty, not the death privelage not to accept. (I couldn't think of a better wording--I did try.) Your argument is all over the place. You were just telling me that life in prison would be worse than dying, now you're back to saying that the death penalty is a worse punishment. To try to mitigate the effects of that fraction of error. A fact we should acknowledge and compensate for by realizing that there is a possibility we made a mistake. I already explained. Cost and uncertainty. Depending on your definition of murder. I'm fine with killing people if I can be convinced that the good it will cause will outweigh the wrong you're committing in ending their lives. Wait, what? How do you get from "killing innocent people is wrong" to "all murderers should burn in hell for eternity"? Again, I don't believe in justice except as a deterrent. I do believe in second chances (never third chances, though). Punishing someone won't undo the harm they've done. If a man is truly sorry for past crimes, why should he have the rest of his life taken away? I'm not advocating that we set criminals free if they just say they're sorry and promise not to do it again. That would be stupid. What I'm advocating is a prison system that's focused less on punishment and more on addressing the root causes of crime. This article might help you understand what I'd like to see the criminal justice system to look like. Your pronoun is ambiguous. By "it" do you mean the needless taking of life? Of course I'm against that. Or do you mean them getting their lives back? I'd be for that. What's done is done. If someone poses no threat, giving them a second chance at having a normal, happy life is infinitely better than ruining or taking said life out of a misguided sense of justice. Even one life wrongly taken away is too many. Repeating myself is starting to get tiring. We can attempt to set things right if we locked someone up mistakenly. We can't do a damn thing about what we did if they're dead.
|
|