Anyone here pro death penalty?

[Eric Blair]

Oh I am glad you weren't taking the piss because it is basically what I think.

I would respond to Corganists last long post but I am finding it difficult to type through all the tears I am shedding for executed criminals.

[redbreegull]

Corganist, with each post you demonstrate that the bottom line is that you are the victim of your own emotions, and you seek to apply the whim of your feelings to the law. Personally I would like to see a legal system less subject to the emotional fancies of the masses.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Luke de Spa

see um

wasn't taking the piss out of you orwell

i would defend myself but there comes a time in any discussion with corganist where i realise i'm dealing with some psychopathic hypersophist and i have to tap out

in a perfect world i would realise the folly of my ways and stop coming back, but, uh, doesn't seem to work out

You bring up silly arguments about the nature of reality in a death penalty discussion of all things, and then you call me the sophist? That's funny.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

Corganist, with each post you demonstrate that the bottom line is that you are the victim of your own emotions, and you seek to apply the whim of your feelings to the law.

How is that any different than what anyone else here is doing? At least I am trying to fit it into a consistent theory that explains why it is legal instead of making unsupportable blanket proclamations about it. The bottom line is that the only argument any of you guys can give basically boils down to "It's bad because I say so because am uncomfortable with it" at it's core. It's fine to be uncomfortable with the death penalty. If it was done lightly, then that'd be a problem. But if something makes you uncomfortable, it does not make it per se wrong.

I don't see how I'm being the unreasonable one here. I've been saying that we should scale back the use of the death penalty substantially, saving it only for slam dunk, particularly heinous cases. That would very likely go a long way towards resolving the issue of questionable death penalty convictions. It's not like I'm not pulling out the old "kill em all and let God sort them out" routine. I'd hardly say my position that the death penalty should be allowable in limited and specific circumstances is an indicator of my emotions dragging me along...especially when compared to the "OMG. Ew. Blood!" reactions you guys apparently have to executions and death.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Eric Blair

I would respond to Corganists last long post but I am finding it difficult to type through all the tears I am shedding for executed criminals.

Just don't know what else I'm supposed to take from your argument. Either you think the justice system is irreparably flawed from top to bottom to the point where we can never really know if anyone is really guilty of anything (in which case we shouldn't even go so far as to lock people up without some major reforms)...or you want to protect even the worst of the worst from being executed even if they're 100 percent guilty.

I just have a creeping feeling that the latter of the two is closer to what you actually feel.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Corganist

or you want to protect even the worst of the worst from being executed even if they're 100 percent guilty.

I just have a creeping feeling that the latter of the two is closer to what you actually feel.

you say this like it's a bad thing. it's not about protecting the worst of the worst though. it's about protecting the ideals of our country. by not, you know, sanctioning killings.

[Eric Blair]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

emotional fancies of the masses.

I thought you were a socialist but here you are sounding like Cecil Rhodes.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

you say this like it's a bad thing. it's not about protecting the worst of the worst though. it's about protecting the ideals of our country. by not, you know, sanctioning killings.

Your ideals =/= the country's ideals just because you say they are. This country has never had an ideal of absolutely avoiding killing as a blanket rule. If you're going to make a naked value judgment that any kind of killing is wrong and bad no matter who does it or why, I have no problem with that. But defend it for what it is. Don't throw it at me like it's some general inarguable truism and then wrap it up in the American flag while you do it.

[Eric Blair]

Originally Posted by Corganist

Just don't know what else I'm supposed to take from your argument. Either you think the justice system is irreparably flawed from top to bottom to the point where we can never really know if anyone is really guilty of anything (in which case we shouldn't even go so far as to lock people up without some major reforms)...or you want to protect even the worst of the worst from being executed even if they're 100 percent guilty.

I just have a creeping feeling that the latter of the two is closer to what you actually feel.

I didn't say it is irreparably flawed. I said it isn't possible to amass a body of evidence that is equivalent to the punishment administered.

There are obviously some exceptions. I wouldn't have been bothered by the decision to hang various Nazis. But this is such a rare and exceptional circumstance that a death penalty should still have now place in a states judicial system.

And it isn't an issue of protecting the worst of the worst. It is about having a fair and humane judicial system. The actual act of execution [i]is[/is] incredibly cold blooded and ritualistic. I wasn't referring to the trial and appeal process.

When you say there is always an element of vengeance in the judicial system you are probably right to an extent, although muggers get lengthier sentences than drunk drivers because the punishment needs to be equivalent to the crime. However, with death, the punishment is so severe it is on another level and can't be compared to even life in prison. The difference between the two is pretty obvious.

In addition to this capital punishment doesn't have any real benefits that a life sentence doesn't have. All it does is clinically carry out state sanctioned murder. It is shameful for any legal system to condone something like this. So the burden of proof is on you to show why exactly we should have a death penalty. It is not on me to show why it is a bad thing.

[Eric Blair]

Originally Posted by Corganist

Your ideals =/= the country's ideals just because you say they are. This country has never had an ideal of absolutely avoiding killing as a blanket rule. If you're going to make a naked value judgment that any kind of killing is wrong and bad no matter who does it or why, I have no problem with that. But defend it for what it is. Don't throw it at me like it's some general inarguable truism and then wrap it up in the American flag while you do it.

It is always a bad thing, but occasionally necessary (in the very very few wars that have been justified). However, it is not necessary in a judicial system. In this context it is a bad thing with no justification, which makes it worse.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Eric Blair

I didn't say it is irreparably flawed. I said it isn't possible to amass a body of evidence that is equivalent to the punishment administered.

Then it has to follow that you put substantially less value on someone's liberty than you do their life. I find that problematic, but more on that later in the post.

There are obviously some exceptions. I wouldn't have been bothered by the decision to hang various Nazis. But this is such a rare and exceptional circumstance that a death penalty should still have now place in a states judicial system.

Whoa whoa whoa. This undermines your entire argument. What about the supposedly unattainable burden of evidence you claim is necessary to give such a severe punishment? I'm not aware of there being any more evidence against your average Nazi Holocaust defendant than there is in a solidly put together capital murder case. Suddenly it seems like you're saying that it isn't a matter of evidence that determines the propriety of a death sentence, but rather a matter of the crime's scale. Even if you're limiting a grudging endorsement of the death penalty to Holocaust level wrongs, that still suddenly sounds a lot more like what I've been arguing than what you have been.

And it isn't an issue of protecting the worst of the worst. It is about having a fair and humane judicial system. The actual act of execution is incredibly cold blooded and ritualistic. I wasn't referring to the trial and appeal process.

I don't see how you can criticize the clinical and regimented nature of executions as being some kind of knock against it when it is all done that way almost totally for the comfort and benefit of the executed. Would it really be better if it was performed in an emotion-filled and willy-nilly kind of way? I hardly think you wouldn't find fault with that. Cold-bloodedness connotes a total lack of regard for how the accused dies. The way modern executions are performed are anything but cold blooded. They're not taken lightly by anyone involved.

When you say there is always an element of vengeance in the judicial system you are probably right to an extent, although muggers get lengthier sentences than drunk drivers because the punishment needs to be equivalent to the crime.

The need for proportionality between crime and punishment isn't separate from the need for vengeance. I'd even say that we determine that a punishment fits a crime when our collective taste for vengeance is sated (i.e., "giving the bastard what he deserves").

However, with death, the punishment is so severe it is on another level and can't be compared to even life in prison. The difference between the two is pretty obvious.

I'd argue that life in prison can never be as severe a punishment as the crime one commits to get there. Hell, the vast majority of executions pale in comparison to the severity of the crime that spurred them. If we really want the punishment to fit the crime, then why not have death as an option for the most heinous of crimes? Why allow, for instance, someone who commits multiple rapes and murders of children to live out their days where they can watch tv, read, exercise, draw, write, etc. Or if you don't like that example, perhaps your Nazis alluded to above?

Yes, death is an especially severe punishment. But it is a fitting one for especially severe crimes (which, again, is what I am arguing the death penalty should be limited to).

Of course, our differing views of the value of one's freedom probably plays into things as well. I think the difference between death and life in prison is pretty negligible. If you've decided a person is only good enough to spend the rest of their days in complete isolation from society, then obviously it's been decided that they're of not much worth. Without freedom (or any chance whatsoever to earn it back), I don't consider life all that precious...so I don't consider the death penalty to be a totally drastic step in severity once you get to that level.

In addition to this capital punishment doesn't have any real benefits that a life sentence doesn't have. All it does is clinically carry out state sanctioned murder. It is shameful for any legal system to condone something like this. So the burden of proof is on you to show why exactly we should have a death penalty. It is not on me to show why it is a bad thing.

Actually, it is. You're the one who wants change. The burden is on you to say why it should be brought about. You can't just put those who defend the status quo on the defensive and expect them to cow to your moral judgments. I see no reason that anyone should be ashamed of wanting a punishment that is both proportional in severity to a heinous murder, and durable enough to withstand any and all forces of politics.

[Eric Blair]

Okay, I should try and explain this a little more delicately.

I still do not endorse the death penalty. My comment about the execution of Nazis was to try and illustrate that I accept there is some moral ambiguity. It is true that I do not feel particularly horrified that someone like Alfred Rosenberg was executed. To lose sleep over the death of someone like that would be bizarre.

There are still legal problems though. While I certainly feel as though their deaths could be justified, I am still not convinced there should be a legal system which has the death penalty as an option, even in that case. I’ll explain why.

Let’s take the Nuremberg trials. I will admit it is pretty unambiguous and you are right to say there are murder cases in standard courts which are equally unambiguous, so any example from Nuremburg will be a good one. One of the most well known outcomes of the trial was the sentence of Albert Speer, who served twenty years in Spandau. The reasoning behind him not receiving the death penalty was perfectly sound, though it could perhaps have gone either way. His subordinate, Fritz Sauckel, who was perhaps even less blameless, was hanged based on equally as sound reasoning and with the same body of evidence.

It is this kind of incident which leads me to believe that there is perhaps no legal scenario with the death penalty is unambiguously called for. This is perhaps why capital punishment is not a possibility in international law. As much as I despise figures like Milosevic, Pinochet and Kissinger, I don’t believe that a death penalty should be an option for them.

Morally, it is impossible to condemn even someone who has raped a child to the same extent as someone like Speer who participated in some of the most horrific crimes in human history. It is just never ethically that clear cut. However, these people cannot just be left to themselves. There has to be some correction. It is just pragmatic. That is why I can draw distinctions between a death penalty and a prison sentence.

I’m not entirely sure what you mean when you talk about the role a ‘collective taste for vengeance’ plays in the sentencing of a criminal. For a start there is a reason why no one would accept a kangaroo court, administered by an angry mob. I think it is correct to say that a court should try to attain as much objectivity as possible, and that sentencing should contain as little emotion as possible. This goal should be more or less given. It is the only way to avoid mistakes and achieve a result that is as fair as possible.

If we can accept that objectivity should be achieved then we can argue a couple of things. First of all, that we cannot provide evidence that would put things beyond doubt. Secondly, we can that the life of the criminal will never fully be understood. If this is so, why should we pronounce such a severe punishment that achieves such a totality, when our own justice system cannot amass an equivalent body of evidence? This is not metaphysics. In fact, it is almost a truism.

Of course, there are stronger arguments. You say for instance that the burden of proof is on me to show why it should be abolished. This is not so. For a start I live in a country where there is no death penalty, and its status varies from country to country, so really we should try and discuss this with as little context as possible.

As a general concept the purpose of a justice system is to maintain laws that allow members of a society to live in peace as much as is possible. The purpose of punishment is to maintain that order. So when someone murders another person the purpose of the courts is to see that the law is maintained and that the offender, if is crime is sever, is not able to fuck shit up again.

If a life sentence achieves all this, then there is no possible reason why a punishment that is more severe should exist. Not only does the death penalty not aid law and order, but it can never be proved to be proportional, because such a body of proof cannot objectively exist. If the aim of a court is objectivity (which it is) then a death penalty is not acceptable.

In addition to this, if we try and incorporate a taste for vengeance into out legal bodies then we become nothing more than a bunch of hot headed animals. The aim should not to be to dole out a proportional punishment, but to serve the needs of a community.

I mean, if you want to ignore all this there are other reasons… cost, the fact that so many people on death row are being proved innocent (which suggests strongly before such evidence innocent people would have been executed).

Those are my thoughts. If I post like this again I will turn into redbreegull so respond, by all means, but don’t expect a reply. I will probably just be repeating everything anyway.

[Eric Blair]

This is too long for me to edit out the parts where I sound like a snob :/