Death/Prison

[giantfossilpenguin]

I'm not sure where this would best be put, none of the sub-fora really seem to jump out at me.
Anyway, in a small discussion about capital punishment last night, my Wife said something really interesting. I was surprised to hear that she would support the death penalty in cases were the crime was horrific enough and guilt was 100% without doubt (I can sort of go along with this myself). I suggested that a life term of imprisonment was much more punishment as the criminal has to suffer the whole term of their penalty, not be given, as I put it, the easy way out.
Shortly after that, I decried the religious doctrine of Hell and infinite pnishment for finite crime. Her response was, as this life is all we know, wouldn't that mean that life imprisonment would constitute infinite punishment per se. I also suppose that the death penalty would mean the same thing.
I'm a bit stumped by this one. If we only live this life, and there is nothing after but death, then we can punish someone until the end of their life without making it a de facto infinite punishment? I think this is just a wierd philosophical knot, but can anyone clear it up for me?

GFP

[Yaezakura]

If you argue that life in prison or the death penalty is an infinite punishment, it is only logical to see the crime itself as infinite in scope, since it ended someone's life, and the friends and family will deal with that pain until the end of their own lives.

[Art Vandelay]

When it comes to the worst criminals, I don't see it as a case of punishment so much as protection for the rest of society. I personally believe that they're beyond rehabilitation so punishing them would simply be a waste of effort.

[giantfossilpenguin]

I agree with what's being said. However, that's not really what I'm getting at. Those who dislike the idea of Hell dislike the idea that there could ever be infinite punishment for infinite crime. Now, distatseful as it is, a crime that would warrant the death penalty/life imprisonment is still a finite act. Certainly, it would take a hell of a lot more to 'make it up' to the people wronged and to satisfy society that the criminal is contrite and won't do it again, but still the vexing question is that if our life span is all that we ever get, then would that be enough to define it as infinite, within the scope of our experience?
The more I think about it (because I certainly don't see this as an argument to allow the worst sort of criminals to get out of harsh punishments) the more I'm thinking I've got bogged down in some wierd definitional quagmire. But I'd be interested to see of anyone else see my point or can see where I've gone wrong.

GFP

[tolpuddlemartyr]

In a lot of jurisdictions life sentences aren't necessarily life long affairs. I think in Australia it is 10 - 25 years before they can request parole.

In any case infinity by definition is just that, if you serve a five year sentence and die in four it would seem silly to say you spent an infinite amount of time in jail.

[Yaezakura]

I think the real issue the idea of eternity when it comes to hell.

Humans are mortal creatures. Once you've taken their entire life, they literally have nothing else to give. So when it comes to murderers, taking their entire life away is the best we can manage. We take their life in exchange for the life they took. Sadly, we can only do it once, no matter how many victims there were. There's just no ability to punish beyond the mortal lifespan.

Hell, on the other hand, is forever. Every soul sent there is tortured forever. No matter how heinous a crime, "forever" amounts of torture can never be equated to it. Even if you strangled every person alive with your bare hands while raping puppies, there comes a point where enough time in hell has equated it, and then you're still there for an eternity after.

Life imprisonment or death for murderers is as close to fair as we can get. It may be final, but it is not infinite in the same way that hell is. And that's what makes hell so unfair compared even to our harshest penalties.

[shiftyeyes]

The purpose of punishment ought to be 4-fold (and I'm not quite sure how they should be prioritized). Rehabilitation--ideally, the offender ought to emerge from the punishment as a productive capable member of society. Prevention of harm--keep those who are likely to engage in socially unacceptable acts from doing so (usually accomplished by isolation). Deterrent--make the consequences of certain actions sufficiently unpleasant that people chose not to engage in them. Restitution--make amends to the victim(s) in as much a way possible; note that this is not the same as revenge even if victims want vengeance. This schema assumes that actions that warrant punishment are those that are socially destructive.

Let's put hell into this schema (and assume that all of the things Yahwey lists as sins are socially destructive). It's not a particularly good deterrent as there's a get out of hell free card. Restitution to Yahwey is unnecessary as an omnipotent being can't be harmed, and hell would not help in restitution to other people. It utterly fails at rehabilitation. And it does an excellent job of preventing further unacceptable actions".

If we put death and life into this schema (abbreviated D,L b/c I'm lazy). D is a bit better at prevention of harm but that would decrease if the prison system were less of a criminal factory and run better (though if D is good, I don't know why we'd want to get better prisons). From what I've heard, both suck equally as deterrents [citation needed]. L provides more opportunities for rehabilitation and restitution. Even without a chance at parole, while alive, the offender can be made into a better person and may do something to improve the world (even if it's small).

From a moral perspective I don't like the idea that a punishment should be used because it's so unpleasant, it seems like our goal as a society should be to make people into their best possible selves and that includes those who have demonstrated that a more forceful approach to that process needs to be taken. Wanting them to suffer feels vindictive and wrong. From a practical perspective, the severity of the punishment doesn't seem to have much of a deterrent effect on capital crimes.

[Dragon Zachski]

My perspective is basically the same as Shiftyeyes. I'm not for the death penalty at all.

...Someone on another board put it best. She opposed the death penalty. When asked if she would ask for the death penalty for the hypothetical killer of a family member, she said "Yes, I would. That doesn't make it right, though."

That's where I am.

As far as a life imprisonment goes... I don't think it's comparable to hell. For one thing, it's finite, as determined by the lifespan of the individual imprisoned. For another thing... you have chances to get out, which is especially important if you're, in reality, innocent. Also, in hell, you're tortured. In life imprisonment... well, you do things that aren't necessarily torture. You can be productive. You have things to do.

Also, I've... heard of how the death penalty is performed. Organ paralysis resulting in suffocating to death, and most sources I've heard of say the victim is conscious during this. I don't see how it's different from an improper hanging, and quite frankly, it makes the guillotine look merciful. To me, it's nothing more than a form of revenge, especially in a society in which we should be able to contain these criminals in other ways.

Of course, what with our prisons actually being somewhat full, there are some other solutions needed. First of all... release all people imprisoned for being illegal immigrants, or for drug use. And, well... play it by ear from there, since I'm not actually that educated enough to know what to do after that.

[the sandman]

To be honest, the death penalty doesn't really have anything to do with the actual prisoner. It's not about punishment or deterrence or any of that, really. It's cathartic revenge for society and the associates of the victim. Let's just call it what it is.

[georgebullocks]

I'll support whichever method that's cheaper than the rest. Back in China, we've always, until recently, executed people with 7.62 assault rifles, point blank, in the back of the cranium, with the executees on their knees blindfolded. And immediately their bodies will be hauled off onto medical vans where organs are harvested and used to save outstanding, productive members of the society. I've always thought it's a good idea and america should follow our suit.

[dietcokewithlemon]

I think your logic/math is flawed. If someone where to serve a full life sentence and die in prison that would not be an 'infinite' sentence. It would be a 100% sentence but not infinite.
Also, as that person would have spent a considerable length of time before being arrested as a free person they would not serve a 100% life sentence but instead a 100% of their remaining life sentence.
If I were to die of cancer I would not suffer 'infinite' or 'eternal' suffering with cancer just because that was my final state. And death is always unpleasant. Its either disease or trauma.

Another technical point is that the Bable is a little bit confusing about the details of hell. My understanding is that hell only lasts for 1000 years following the second coming and then all the damned souls are destroyed. Some Judeo-Christian groups do not believe in hell and others see 'damnation' as simply immediate destruction of the soul - i.e. no afterlife for sinners. Then you get limbo, purgatory and all the other bollocks these people believe in.

Another point raised is the idea of the death penalty only when '100% sure' they are guilty. If the jury is not 100% sure then they should find the accused not guilty. Beyond reasonable doubt.

e.g.

Judge: "The jury find you guilty of murdering several young girls, but they are only 95% sure you did it so I sentence you to life imprisonment rather than the chair."

In criminal cases the judgement is based on a pass/fail system. You are either guilty of each charge or you are not.
In civil cases the judgement can include percentages of fault, someone can be 50% responsible for a car accident and therefore the payments are scaled accordingly.

[Yaezakura]

Oct 11, 2010 8:25:37 GMT -5 georgebullocks said:

I'll support whichever method that's cheaper than the rest. Back in China, we've always, until recently, executed people with 7.62 assault rifles, point blank, in the back of the cranium, with the executees on their knees blindfolded. And immediately their bodies will be hauled off onto medical vans where organs are harvested and used to save outstanding, productive members of the society. I've always thought it's a good idea and america should follow our suit.

And if I recall, their families were billed for the bullet, whether they had any knowledge of the crimes committed. And the organs harvested regardless of the wishes of the condemned or their family.

You can certainly say it's useful to harvest the organs of people sentenced to death. And indeed, if possible, I'm sure US prisons do so. But they're still human beings, and have the right to decide what happens to their bodies after death.

[georgebullocks]

Oct 11, 2010 8:46:53 GMT -5 Yaezakura said:

Oct 11, 2010 8:25:37 GMT -5 georgebullocks said:

I'll support whichever method that's cheaper than the rest. Back in China, we've always, until recently, executed people with 7.62 assault rifles, point blank, in the back of the cranium, with the executees on their knees blindfolded. And immediately their bodies will be hauled off onto medical vans where organs are harvested and used to save outstanding, productive members of the society. I've always thought it's a good idea and america should follow our suit.

And if I recall, their families were billed for the bullet, whether they had any knowledge of the crimes committed. And the organs harvested regardless of the wishes of the condemned or their family.

You can certainly say it's useful to harvest the organs of people sentenced to death. And indeed, if possible, I'm sure US prisons do so. But they're still human beings, and have the right to decide what happens to their bodies after death.

Really? I didn't know that. A bullet costs, like what, 1.5 yuan? I don't think our government is that cheap.

And yes, people have the right to discard their body as worm food instead of giving them up to others in need, but that's what upsets me so much, people unwilling to donate their organs always vastly outnumber those who do, and that unwillingness to donate their bodies, which would otherwise be discarded assets, usually stems from religious beliefs or simply a superstitous belief in afterlife. So I don't like them exercising that right one bit.

[matante]

Some people do think killing a criminal, no matter how painfully, is never enough.
Due to my father's actions, I've been faced with arguments on genetic profiling several times.
Several people have told me they also wanted his blood relatives punished. According to them, I should be sterilised, and monitored to be preemptively detained if I showed the slightest sign of sexual deviance. They say only rendering child molesters 100% unable to pass on their genes, by sterilising all their daughters and sisters (somehow his brother was never involved in their revenge fantasies) is true incentive against it. Powerful incentive, they say. I've learned that from libertarians, "powerful incentive" should be heard as "fapfapfap".

[Yaezakura]

Oct 11, 2010 9:06:59 GMT -5 georgebullocks said:

Oct 11, 2010 8:46:53 GMT -5 Yaezakura said:

And if I recall, their families were billed for the bullet, whether they had any knowledge of the crimes committed. And the organs harvested regardless of the wishes of the condemned or their family.

You can certainly say it's useful to harvest the organs of people sentenced to death. And indeed, if possible, I'm sure US prisons do so. But they're still human beings, and have the right to decide what happens to their bodies after death.

Really? I didn't know that. A bullet costs, like what, 1.5 yuan? I don't think our government is that cheap.

And yes, people have the right to discard their body as worm food instead of giving them up to others in need, but that's what upsets me so much, people unwilling to donate their organs always vastly outnumber those who do, and that unwillingness to donate their bodies, which would otherwise be discarded assets, usually stems from religious beliefs or simply a superstitous belief in afterlife. So I don't like them exercising that right one bit.

Whether you like it or not is immaterial. We can find religious beliefs silly all we want, but they are a serious issue to a lot of people.

I, personally, am an organ donor, and encourage everyone else to be as well. But forcing it on someone is no better than theft.