Capital Punishment: Is it Time for its Return?

[drankin]

Executing someone for willfully taking the lives of innocent people seems like the best thing for society to me. Keeping someone alive, food, housing, clothing, (a TV?), for the rest of their life just doesn't compute to me.

But I don't live in Norway.

 

[DaveC426913]

Let's get back to the topic please.

This is actually the topic as defined by the OP.

The OP explicitly clarified in post #3 that his issue is with the age category of the poll:

The concern for me is this

Harris questioned 1,100 people aged between 16 and 64.

Sixteen-years-old?...

Trying to play the old Devil's advocate game? Because if you want a serious poll, a poll representing the people that would actually be able to vote on such a thing, you don't ask children. Sixteen year olds can't vote, so unless you want to argue that 16 years old be allowed to vote, your argument is rather pointless.

My point is that this poll is not necessarily about voting. While minors do not make legal decisions, they do (arguably) have a right to weigh in on moral grounds.

One can rationalize and argue costs and benefits of this or that actions; there will be under debate by everyone of a legal age, but the core issue here cannot be side-stepped - and it doesn't require a law degree to have an opinion on - which is thus:

All other issues aside, can you accept your country institutionalizing the killing of citizens?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Japan has a very low murder rate, about twice the Norwegian.
It also executes its murderers on a large scale.

So, there really isn't any solid correlation that countries that practice execution have much larger murder rates than others.

Efficacy is not an aspect of why I oppose the death penalty. The morals of it along with the impracticalities of it is why it I currently deem it unethical.

Executing someone for willfully taking the lives of innocent people seems like the best thing for society to me. Keeping someone alive, food, housing, clothing, (a TV?), for the rest of their life just doesn't compute to me.

Death is easy, life is hard. Execution is a solution for society not a punishment for the criminal. Keeping them alive for decades at a time serves two purposes

1) It is a punishment they can appreciate
2) There is a chance that they can reform in which case they are not the same person they were when they committed the crime.

I see nothing logically wrong with this and as is the case with ethics it is a lot murkier than the rest of what we can discuss on this forum. This is what I hold to be moral at this time.

 

[drankin]

Efficacy is not an aspect of why I oppose the death penalty. The morals of it along with the impracticalities of it is why it I currently deem it unethical.


Death is easy, life is hard. Execution is a solution for society not a punishment for the criminal. Keeping them alive for decades at a time serves two purposes

1) It is a punishment they can appreciate
2) There is a chance that they can reform in which case they are not the same person they were when they committed the crime.

I see nothing logically wrong with this and as is the case with ethics it is a lot murkier than the rest of what we can discuss on this forum. This is what I hold to be moral at this time.

1) It is a punishment they can appreciate. Why would it matter what they appreciate? They obviously don't appreciate letting others live.
2) There is a chance that they can reform in which case they are not the same person they were when they committed the crime. It doesn't matter if they can be reformed. If they live the consequences of their actions can never be appreciated.

I don't see the moral dilemna in this. To me, letting a murderer live actually devalues the lives of others in a society. The lives of innocent individuals are not seen as important. Some social ideal is held above their own individual existence.

I think this is where the core of the debate lies. Idealism versus individual worth.

 

[arildno]

Why is it important that a criminal "appreciates" his punishment?
Rather, it is the society around that determines what punishments theit criminals ought to have.

Basically, it is about how a society maintains pride and confidence in itself.

 

[Char. Limit]

Sorry let me rephrase that properly. I shouldn't have added the "Uk" part.

Basically all I am saying is that 16-year-olds aren't well-informed enough and therefore I don't think their opinions should be valued very much. I mean most of them are still in high school

That's a fantastic generalisation you've made there, an offensive one at that.

When I was sixteen, I did my best to be informed on the issues. I joined the JSA (never made it to office there, but that's beside the point), and I, for the most part, knew the main issues and what people wanted to do about them.

Just because YOU at 16 didn't know anything about politics doesn't mean everyone didn't.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

1) It is a punishment they can appreciate. Why would it matter what they appreciate? They obviously don't appreciate letting others live.
2) There is a chance that they can reform in which case they are not the same person they were when they committed the crime. It doesn't matter if they can be reformed. If they live the consequences of their actions can never be appreciated.

I don't see the moral dilemna in this. To me, letting a murderer live actually devalues the lives of others in a society. The lives of innocent individuals are not seen as important. Some social ideal is held above their own individual existence.

I think this is where the core of the debate lies. Idealism versus individual worth.

We're going to have to agree to disagree, not all murderers are bloodthirsty sociopaths. I see the purpose of a criminal justice system to issue rehabilitation, not state sanctioned vengeance. I don't agree that there is any devaluing of human life in not having executions, if anything I think it exemplifies the value of human life.

Why is it important that a criminal "appreciates" his punishment?
Rather, it is the society around that determines what punishments theit criminals ought to have.

Basically, it is about how a society maintains pride and confidence in itself.

I don't think there is any link to pride or confidence. It's important that a criminal appreciates his punishment because otherwise it is pointless. Justice isn't for the satisfaction of the victim nor society it is for the protection of society by dealing with crime. As I don't agree that executions are a good way with dealing with crime I therefore don't agree that it is an appropriate part of justice.

 

[drankin]

We're going to have to agree to disagree, not all murderers are bloodthirsty sociopaths. I see the purpose of a criminal justice system to issue rehabilitation, not state sanctioned vengeance. I don't agree that there is any devaluing of human life in not having executions, if anything I think it exemplifies the value of human life.



I don't think there is any link to pride or confidence. It's important that a criminal appreciates his punishment because otherwise it is pointless. Justice isn't for the satisfaction of the victim nor society it is for the protection of society by dealing with crime. As I don't agree that executions are a good way with dealing with crime I therefore don't agree that it is an appropriate part of justice.

Yes, we disagree. I'm just pointing out the crux of the debate. I appreciate your point of view.

Justice IS for the satisfaction of the victims, their families, and society. It is not just rodent removal. We all have a sense of justice. That's why many of us are on this forum.

We pay a lot of money to our government to reinforce our sense of justice. We want consequences for bad behaviour, irresponsibility, and violence. Rehabilitation is great, but that is not the purpose of the "justice" system.

I think I ran a red light today at a camera enforced intersection. I'd rather be rehabilitated than pay the ticket but guess what... :)

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Yes, we disagree. I'm just pointing out the crux of the debate. I appreciate your point of view.

And I appreciate your point of view and I do think it is legitimate in spite of strongly disagreeing.

 

[Jack21222]

Do you have any real figures for that?

EDIT not the best source but http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/nov/04/prisons-reoffending-rates" quotes the cost of keeping a UK inmate is £45,000 (~$75,000) yet the cost of reoffending is £11billion (~$17billion). Frustratingly there's no reference for where these figures come from nor a time frame over which they are meant to apply.

The number came right from my rectal cavity, but I'm fairly sure it's order-of-magnitude correct.

 

[flyingpig]

When I was sixteen, I did my best to be informed on the issues. I joined the JSA (never made it to office there, but that's beside the point), and I, for the most part, knew the main issues and what people wanted to do about them.

Just because YOU at 16 didn't know anything about politics doesn't mean everyone didn't.

No I did know, but I didn't think it was ENOUGH to make a good judgment. All the knowledge I had back then was from textbooks that was taught to us, so it was rather one-sided.

 

[DaveC426913]

No I did know, but I didn't think it was ENOUGH to make a good judgment.

Enough to answer a poll. It's just a poll.

No one said whether the poll was being used to affect policy.

 

[Evo]

I'd say something, but then I'd have to ban myself. I believe that many cannot be rehabilitated, their upbringing saw to that. You would have to change their entire being. People need to realize that a person raised to believe that only violence and hatred matters cannot be easily, if ever changed.

Then you have the person put into a bad, abusive situation by another person and they snap and kill/harm them. These people shouldn't be jailed because they are not a threat to society, IMO.

Then you have the ones that kill for profit or convenience. These should be kept away from society. Can they be rehabilitated, a few, maybe, depends if they can be kept out of situations where they feel someone is between them and what they want.

Then you have those that kill and torture for fun. I don't think these can be rehabilitated either.

So, in my opinion, either they shouldn't be in prison or a few might be rehabilitated, the majority will never be safe to be released. I believe justice is an eye for an eye, and in these later cases means a death sentence is not punishment.

IMO.

 

[daveb]

I think this is where the core of the debate lies. Idealism versus individual worth.

However, there are moral and ethical philosophies that take the position (see Kant) that life itself is invaluable, regardless of whether it is innocent or not, so even that line can be murky. Here, any kind of killing is morally wrong because it devalues the individual worth of the person being executed (in other words, just because the person A doesn't uphold the moral code doesn't mean the moral code no longer applies to them).

 

[arildno]

It is ironic that you refer to Immanuel Kant.
He is one of the clearest SUPPORTERS of the death penalty.

Here are three quotes by him:

1. "“If an offender has committed murder, he must die. In this case, no possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most miserable life, so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is judicially put to death.”

2. "Even if a civil society were to be dissolved by the consent of all its members (e.g., if a people inhabiting an island decided to separate and disperse throughout the world), the last murderer remaining in prison would first have to be executed, so that each has done to him what his deeds deserve and blood guilt does not cling to the people for not having insisted upon this punishment; for otherwise the people can be regarded as collaborators in his public violation of justice"

3. "A society that is not willing to demand a life of somebody who has taken somebody else's life is simply immoral."

http://pro-dp.appspot.com/init/default/view/697011/Philosophers

 

[daveb]

I would argue that Kant is wrong in tis context because he is treating the person being executed as a means to an end (satisfying justice, eliminating blood guilt, etc.).

 

[arildno]

Or, maybe you have understood Kant wrongly, and that he is quite consistent, also in the case of the death penalty.

 

[daveb]

Perhaps so, but his quotes are not arguments.

 

[arildno]

Perhaps so, but his quotes are not arguments.

Nor have I said they were.

 

[daveb]

Nor have I said they were.

Good point.

 

[DaveC426913]

Yeah, those aren't arguments at all, they're simply stated beliefs...
How did this guy get to be influential?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Yeah, those aren't arguments at all, they're simply stated beliefs...
How did this guy get to be influential?

By never leaving the town he was born in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant#Biography

Anyone that weird is bound to attract attention :tongue2:

 

[daveb]

Kant was what my philosophy teacher loved to call an "armchair" philosopher.

As for why he can be so influential, you have to separate the philosopher from the philosophy (which is sort of required of Kantian moralists since you are only supposed to compare yourself to the moral code, not to others).

 

[flyingpig]

What if one gets framed for murder and the law can't see it right? That's a problem.

I think we should only enact this when there is definite evidence to support the claim.

Like finger prints, live video capture (probably not edited with effects?), and DNA testing?

 

[arildno]

What if one gets framed for murder and the law can't see it right? That's a problem.

I think we should only enact this when there is definite evidence to support the claim.

Like finger prints, live video capture (probably not edited with effects?), and DNA testing?

Breivik is an excellent example of a guy where miscarriage of justice in implementing the death penalty would not be an issue.