Folks,

You can disagree on this issue, but please keep the discussion civil. There is no need to insult people on a personal level or tell them to commit suicide. That is not acceptable on this forum.
Thank you for understanding,

zultar
Site Owner

@ssorenn

Thucy was doing that somewhat sarcastically. And there is a BIG difference between that and telling someone to commit suicide, which is something I've always hated. Suicide and depression are NOT things to take lightly!

Thanks, zultar!

And apologies if that "fuck you" to fiedler was a bit harsh. Telling people to commit suicide is one of the few things that makes me particularly upset.

I would also agree with LeinadT that suicide and depression are not things to make fun of. If anyone here has the need to do that, please do it elsewhere because it isn't going to fly here. I hope I am being fairly clear about this.
Thanks,

zultar
Site Owner

that's really too far, it's just a thread.

no Thucy meant it, but thats besides the point, i harbor no ill will for all my detractors here.....if you all had not noticed i dont care what any of you think---i just sent this in a PM to someone but now its appropriate to share:::::

so a very wise man, who i happened to meet from this site, told me"it is unwise to argue with strangers on the internet"

How very true, yet i find it so exhilarating. they all get their panties up in a bunch and im dying laughing at home---you cant pay for such good entertainment

How come you get to decide what is taken sarcastically and what isn't?

Is there a permit I can buy or something?

LET'S ALL MAKE A FUSS ABOUT NAME CALLING AND HURT FEELINGS
then we can quietly avoid facing the reality that our 'liberal' views are useless rubbish that simply don't work in the real world.

I wish I could give zultar more +1s.

@fiedler

There's no arguing that a thought experiment about punishing jurors in the same way they punish criminals is FAR different than telling someone to kill themselves!

When it comes to things like suicide, you need to make the sarcasm obvious, although I'd suggest refraining from making light of such a dark topic at all. This goes WAY beyond "making a fuss about name calling and hurt feelings." Suicide is a really fucking serious topic, and recognizing that you shouldn't encourage it has nothing to do with political views, it has to do with not being an asshole. (Hell, even assholes know not to cross that line!)

Ahah, yes fine LeinadT.

So so sorry everyone. Especially as your all such models of politeness yourselves. And so wise, and handsome.

wjessop can you please answer my question - what is the penalty for imprisoning someone? I think I know the answer - is it imprisonment?

What's the punishment for stealing again? Based on equivalences that fiedler also wants to use, I would guess it's theft.

Oh, and whilst we are at it, those who said this was a 'false equivalency' - can you please explain to me why? I crave the learning.

@fiedler

I think that was a bit sarcastic, but as long as you refrain from that I guess I won't complain.

Wasn't my answer good enough?

If you're a jury enforcing the laws of a democratically elected government, and the person is falsely accused of a crime, hopefully there's some sort of appeals system. If the people don't like a law that they got someone in jail for, they should campaign to change it.

As long as the result of the trial was merely a mistake, no one should get in trouble for that. If it was someone who had it out for the accused, and lied to get them in jail, they should and I hope will get in lots of trouble for that.

If a regular person like me or you imprisons someone, that's called kidnapping, and they'd certainly a hefty punishment, which I presume would consist of, yes, imprisonment.

I think that answers your question.

Thank you, your second last question answers my first question, although I'd still like tohear from wjessop (so wise).

Don't think you've answered why it's a false equivalency, but it doesn't matter too much.

hehe

What is the punishment for feeding dragons?

@wjessop

"1. Punishing crime by asking another person to commit crime."
This is a very weak argument, as it pre-supposes the point that you're trying to prove. I.e. for this to work, you would have to actually believe that executing someone is a crime. It's a fine argument if you already believe it, but not a compelling one otherwise.

"2. Incorrect verdicts"
This is a practical argument rather than a principled one. I'm not saying it's necessarily bad, just that it completely ignores the rather important question of "well, what is the verdict actually is correct? what then?"

"3. Inadequate legal representation"
I refer to my comments on the previous argument.

"4. Deterrence?"
I don't know the statistics, so I will grant your point. Except for this: "most crimes punishable by death (murder and rape) are crimes committed outside of rational thought." There are plenty of people who have committed premeditated murder with deliberation and purpose. Plenty of evil, but also plenty of rationality.

"5. Arbitrary Applications of the Death Penalty"
I would group this with #2 and #3.

"6. Alternatives to the Death Penalty"
There are alternatives to imprisonment too, but simply stating that alternatives exist doesn't really make for a strong argument as to why the method you are arguing against is actually disproportionate. (And the "cheapness" argument really is one that, in my opinion, should be ignored if we're talking about moral issues of what's right and what's wrong. I don't care who's making it; it's irrelevant.)

"7. Axis of Evil"
This isn't a particularly strong argument unless it's the use of the death penalty qua death penalty that makes these nations evil.

"8. Justice Not Revenge.
We cannot teach that killing is wrong by killing."
Sure we can. We "rob" people of money they unrightfully (wrongfully?) take from others. This is a fairly uncontroversial way of doing things, and I suspect it could be construed (again, without much controversy) as a way of show others that this is something they shouldn't do. We imprison people against their will if we discover they have imprisoned people against their will. This too is a relatively uncontroversial practice and could (yet again, without much controversy) be read as as a way of teaching others to take a lesson. So it seems to me that we certainly could take the lives of people who take the lives of people and interpret it as a way of teaching others not to follow that course of action themselves. I would, of course, never use what I just said to argue that we SHOULD teach people that killing is wrong by killing, but I certainly don't think the argument that YOU made stands up, at least not as you wrote it.

"9. Right to Life
We cannot say that everyone has an inalienable human right to life, if we pick and choose who does and does not have that right."
This is a very bad argument. First, it's common to group life and liberty together as inalienable rights, yet if you approve of the removal of liberty at the hands of the state (i.e. imprisonment), then you cannot possibly use this argument, as you have stated it, without being inconsistent. Second, no one who argues for the death penalty thinks that it ought to be applicable unless the person being executed has actually committed a crime worthy of receiving that penalty--sort of like no one who argues for imprisonment believes it ought to be applicable unless the person being imprisoned has actually committed a crime worth of receiving that penalty. (And when I say "no one," I admit I may be engaging in a bit of unintentional hyperbole.)

"10. Raise The Bar, Don't Stoop to their Level
The death penalty is an inappropriate method a modern civilised society to respond to even the most dreadful crimes, considering that we are absolutely capable of avoiding it."
Again, this pre-supposes the point to be proven (that civilization and execution are mutually exclusive) without actually proving it.

"11. We have a duty of care to protect people who are mentally ill."
This is entirely true. But I refer back to what I said under #4: there are plenty of people who have committed premeditated murder with deliberation and purpose. Plenty of evil, but also plenty of rationality and not a hint of mental dysfunction. (I admit that I myself am presupposing that a person could purposefully commit murder and still be functioning on an entirely sane, mentally competent and healthy level, though I suspect that may be a point of controversy for some.)

Dragons are beautiful creatures. Top of the food-chain. Looking down on plebs.

> There is no punishment. Only the terrible guilt of not feeding a magnificent draco.

@OutsideSmoker27

I'll leave some of those arguments for wjessop to defend (I mean, not all of them have to be right for our point to still be right--I'd say it was a good list, but some points were slightly shaky), but some of those I can provide a counter-counterpoint to, even after 1AM:

2. What if the verdict is actually correct? Then life imprisonment still works.

4. Yes, they can be rational, but that doesn't mean they can be deterred. My viewpoint is that people who commit murder that isn't done to cover up other crimes are usually some combination of mentally ill, psychopathic, or blinded by hatred. None of those groups are generally receptive to deterrents. And also, life imprisonment is certainly not a walk in the park! If that, plus one's conscience, can't deter one from murder or rape, then I doubt the death penalty will.

6. I agree that the "cheapness" argument should be ignored, but I think that in the first thread Ssorenn and maybe some others were talking about how bad it is to waste our resources keeping bad people like Tsarnaev alive. It's an important point to smash their economic defense of the death penalty by stating that it actually saves money to avoid execution.

7. Most first-world countries, including all of Europe except Belarus, have abolished the death penalty. Most countries that still use the death penalty are also *severely* lacking in other human rights categories. I'm not saying that this alone is a reason to abolish the death penalty, but it's not a bad argument for it.

8. False equivalency. "Robbing" people to give back the money they take is a different thing. The equivalent to that would be resurrecting victims of murder, which (sadly) is not how it works at all. An eye-for-eye way of doing things is, in my opinion, out of date. I vehemently don't think that's how our legal system should work, and thus I don't think it's good for us to do that.

To once again regurgitate one of my views: I also don't think that government (or a jury enforcing government-made laws and punishments) should be making these types of decisions. I distrust the government, so I hate the idea of them (or a jury enforcing government-made laws and punishments) having the ability to kill people, in the name of execution, war, or whatever.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@The Entire webDip Community

Now, us anti-death-penalty-ers been playing defense for most of this. And I think we've done a good job. Mind if I turn the tables?

I will ask for an answer to this question once more, and hope, yet not hold my breath, for an answer: what about the death penalty makes society better?

What about the death penalty makes society better?

Evil people are removed from it. An example is made to others. The ultimate condemnation of society is applied. Justice is served.

Why is this so hard?

I've already addressed the "example is made to others" bit. And I've addressed the "ultimate condemnation" bit--that's not the job of government (or a jury enforcing government-made laws and punishments). I don't think that "justice" is the point either.

Now, the first part: "evil people are removed from it" part. Doesn't life imprisonment do exactly that?

Not as cost-effectively.

A lot of the sickos are quite happy in prison. Why allow them even their happy memories? When you execute someone you say hey don't deserve any more life, no0 more consciousness to day-dream about all the rapes and murders you did. No more.

@LeinadT

"2. What if the verdict is actually correct? Then life imprisonment still works."
Fair enough, but this really doesn't give us a way to exclude the death penalty from the list of acceptable punishments.

"4. Yes, they can be rational, but that doesn't mean they can be deterred."
No, I agree. I'm sure that there are some people who are deterred by the possibility of punishment in general (and, by extension, of the the death penalty in specific), but I would never want to argue that it's anything more than a practical argument--and even then, not one that you could assert is actually true in all cases.

"6. I agree that the 'cheapness' argument should be ignored, but I think that in the first thread Ssorenn and maybe some others were talking about how bad it is to waste our resources keeping bad people like Tsarnaev alive. It's an important point to smash their economic defense of the death penalty by stating that it actually saves money to avoid execution."
Fair enough.

"7. Most first-world countries, including all of Europe except Belarus, have abolished the death penalty. Most countries that still use the death penalty are also *severely* lacking in other human rights categories. I'm not saying that this alone is a reason to abolish the death penalty, but it's not a bad argument for it."
I tend to think it's not a very helpful argument either way (it opens itself up to false analogy far too easily for my taste), but there you go.

"8. False equivalency."
I'll grant that on the restitution point (although fines paid to the government rather than to the victims would be outside the bounds of false equivalency), but not on the kidnapping one.

"An eye-for-eye way of doing things is, in my opinion, out of date. I vehemently don't think that's how our legal system should work, and thus I don't think it's good for us to do that."
THIS, I think, is the crux of the argument, and I'm glad you said it as plainly you did. I actually happen to think that "an eye for an eye" is abhorrent as a guide for private vengeance but that it's a reasonably useful principle for determining the acceptable proportionality of public punishment (emphasis on "reasonably useful" as distinct from "rigidly--or, to make a pun, blindly--to be adhered to in exact measure in all circumstances"). So I don't think that execution is disproportionate to the crime of murder. I would be hard-pressed to suggest that it's appropriate for any other crime, and I'm not prepared to argue beyond the basic point of applying it to murders that are deliberate and purposeful--however depraved the underlying reasons may be. Nevertheless, meting out punishment in proportion to the crime that it punishes seems to me to be a sign that society recognizes, abhors, and desires to stamp out evil. And this is, in my view, a Good Thing.

I freely grant that I have other reasons for approving of the death penalty in principle that are rooted in the Bible (and NOT, I hasten to add, in the Old Testament civil laws of Israel that people like to complain about), but I'll leave those aside for now. I also have reasons for disapproving of how the death penalty is often practiced that are also rooted in the Bible (the death penalty's application to the weak and the poor and not to the rich and well-connected in equivalent circumstances is particularly galling), but I'll leave those aside as well.

As for the "death vs. life in prison" question, I would say that if a person deserves death--and of course, that's the point of contention that we can't get passed, but anyway: if a person deserves death, I don't see any problem with them receiving it under the supervision of the courts and the justice system. It's even possible that delivering a sentence of life in prison is in fact shirking the duty of the courts to enforce proper punishment. I'm not sure how well I can back that argument up (and I'm sure there's room for exceptions to be made), but I think there's something to it.

And for the record, supposing that Breivik was as fully guilty as all the press reports that I've seen have seemed to indicate that he was, I think the Norwegian courts did shirk their duty in not sentencing him to death--or rather, the Storting shirked its duty 100 years ago by removing from the courts the power to issue such a sentence for non-war crimes.

@OutsideSmoker27

8. Regarding the kidnapping point: it's still a bit different. I'm not an expert on kidnapping laws, but it's not quite as straightforward as the money example. Also, eye-for-eye works better when it doesn't have to do with death. Death is a very serious thing, and as I've said before and will say again, it's not the governments job to do that.

Regarding your posts after that, you're getting rather philosophical for what is a legal question, no? Let me elaborate:

Your position is sensible and fair, but only--only--if you start with the assumption that the government has the right to decide when a person deserves death. That goes into philosophy, morality, and depending on your positions on those two, theology, which is, in my opinion, WAY outside the realm of government (or a jury enforcing government-made laws and punishments).

@feidler

Me and wjessop already addressed the cost-effective bit. It's actually cheaper to let them live in prison than execute them. And as OutsideSmoker (who's on your side) said, the "cheapness" argument should be ignored anyway in an issue like this.

Also, I still don't think that a government (or a jury enforcing government-made laws and punishments) has the right to decide "hey [you] don't deserve any more life." As I said to OutsideSmoker, that involves philosophical and moral arguments that I think go beyond the spectrum of government.

I don't think your argument is as stupid as "it's the way we've been doing it" or "it gives us emotional satisfaction!" or whatever, but I still think that the arguments me and wjessop have been making are better.

Well that's very magnanimous of you Leo, to admit my argument aren't entirely stupid, that can't have been easy for you. You're a perfect poppet. Good night and God bless.