News Death Penalty for cut and dried cases?

[loseyourname]

I think the mission of any criminal justice system is pretty straightforwardly to reduce crime. Whether this is accomplished by deterrence, rehabilitation, or simply by removing criminals from free communities doesn't really matter, although deterrence is probably best accomplished by law enforcement and education agencies more than by criminal justice agencies.

The deterrence effect of death sentences is probably minimal, just because murder tends to be a crime of passion more than rational calculation, and even when it is not, like in this case, it's often perpetrated by nihilistic gang bangers that don't expect to live past 25 anyway and don't particularly care if they're executed (you don't join a violent gang if you're afraid of getting killed).

The "removing criminals from free communities" function is pretty well carried out by execution, however.

As for the expense in keeping people imprisoned, I'd imagine death row inmates constitute a very, very, almost vanishingly small proportion of prison expenses. Drug offenders are probably the largest category. And they already perform labor; I'm not sure how much something like conducting medical research on prisoners would offset prison expenses. They're expensive for a reason. Corrections officers are very highly paid and have terrific benefits and pension plans because they're asked to move to the middle of the desert and be prison guards. It's a miserable existence that they're well-compensated for.

 

[Pinu7]

The central question about the death penalty debate is "does our government reserve the right to execute private citizens?"

 

[loseyourname]

Well, the government clearly does reserve that right, since it currently executes private citizens, but I guess the question is should the government reserve that right?

We could always start from a consideration of cases in which agents of the government are straightforwardly justified in killing, such as law enforcement officers responding to a direct threat of loss of life or during military conflicts, drawing out the reasons these are considered justified actions, and see if they do or not adequately apply to the execution of criminals.

 

[DanP]

I also think that to the extent possible and certainly more than is done now, a criminal should make restitution to the victim or the victim's family. To me it makes no sense that the criminal must pay a fine for some crimes to the state but owes the victim nothing. Of course I'm not suggesting that there is a just restitution for all crimes.

An action in civil law can be launched by the interested parties in addition to the action in criminal law. It provides means for the victim (or victim family) to get compensated.

Second, punishments must remain in place for mostly law abiding citizens, for whom they are a deterrence. In fact it may be that it is the getting away with petty crimes that creates the belief of the perpetrator that he won't get caught and causes him to progress to increasingly serious crimes.

I doubt the gang members in the example were weighing the risk of getting caught and the potential punishment at the time of the attack. And this is my point, at the moment of the crime, particularly a violent crime, the criminals are not thinking about whether they'll get the death penalty or only 20 years, thus the punishment is not a deterrent.

This makes no sense. First you say punishments are deterrents for law abiding citizens , then you say for gang members punishments are not a deterrent. This makes no sense whatsoever.

Second I don't know why you insist on the point that "punishment is not a deterrent". What good does it makes ? DO you propose not to punish anyone because the deterrent effect is minimal ? Let criminals roam free ?

 

[DanP]

The central question about the death penalty debate is "does our government reserve the right to execute private citizens?"

It was responded long ago. It DOES NOT. The death sentence is applied by a jury of your peers (i.e, the ppl, not the state)

 

[DanP]

We could always start from a consideration of cases in which agents of the government are straightforwardly justified in killing, such as law enforcement officers responding to a direct threat of loss of life ...

Actually, any human has the right to kill in self defense, not only law enforcement officers. Their mandate may be a bit larger, and may get away with murder easier (when limits of self defense are exceeded) but yeah, technically, if your life is threatened you can kill the person threathening.

Fortunately, the lawmakers seen the right of a human to kill when his life is endangered by another human.

And self defense is the main reason I am a supporter of the right of any human to keep and bear arms. I consider it a natural right. Any citizen must be able to protect his life and weapons are essential to the exercise of this right.

 

[vertices]

Here, you commit the logic fallacy known as ad authoritam

I wasn't making an 'argument'?

I was simply pointing out that no one 'culture' claims to have their own 'definition' of, as I put it, 'norms of civilised behaviour'. Many countries have ratified Human rights treaties which are based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (drafted by a number of nations including Iran and the US)...

 

[vertices]

skeptic2:

Rights are reciprocal affairs, not unilateral entities.

You keep rights to the extent to which you respect others' rights.

If you do not respect others' rights, in a legally relevant way, then your own rights vanish.


Meaning that you are left with fewer rights than the non-offender...

This is not true.

Some rights - human rights - are inalienable

 

[loseyourname]

Actually, any human has the right to kill in self defense, not only law enforcement officers.

That wasn't the point, though. Only law enforcement officers are acting as agents of the state. I was proposing we explore when and why agents of the state are justified in killing, not when private citizens are justified in killing.

 

[arildno]

I think the mission of any criminal justice system is pretty straightforwardly to reduce crime.

Mission or not, it cannot be the primary justification for punishing crime.

Not the least because there is no reason to suppose limiting punishment to those actually guilty is more effective in crime reduction than punishing a few non-guilties along with them.

To take an example:

Around 50 AD, there was a sordid murder of a Roman senator by one of his household slaves (if I remember my Tacitus right, the murderer became insanely jealous of his master for appropriating the sexual favours of a young slave in the household, a co-slave the murderer wanted for himself).

Anyway, Roman law was very harsh on this point:
The ENTIRE household of slaves should be put to death if anyone them killed their master.

The Senate debated whether this archaic law, that covered a crime they had hardly known an actual, previous instance of, should be implemented.

They chose to do so, in order to deter rebellion amongst slaves against their master.


This law, which punishes guilty and non-guilty alike must be regarded as spectacularly successful in detterring the crime covered, since it cannot have been that unusual for slaves to harbour murderous feelings towards their masters.

The law in question basically forced slaves to inform upon each other, in order to ensure their individual safety.

To punish guilty&non-guilty alike can be perfectly rational in a deterrence perspective, and has its analogue in earlier logic of war: It is better to kill off the families of rebels as well, in order to prevent bereaved, aggrieved family members from plotting revenge in the future...



Whatever "mission" we want our justice system to have, the primary justification of it must lie within a principle in which it is clear that only the guilty ones are to be punished.

 

[arildno]

This is not true.

Some rights - human rights - are inalienable

Which is why that human rights system is, for the most part as practiced today..bogus

 

[Gokul43201]

It was responded long ago. It DOES NOT. The death sentence is applied by a jury of your peers (i.e, the ppl, not the state)

Yet it is true that a jury in Texas may sentence a person to death, while a jury in Michigan (or Australia) can not. Clearly, the state plays a role in determining whether or not a jury may be allowed to put someone to death.

 

[DanP]

This is not true.

Some rights - human rights - are inalienable

The practical view is very simple, rights are not unalienable, but only the possessor of the right can itself renounce the right, i.e it cannot be taken from him from any other 3rd party, private citizen or government. However, if he initiates foul play against another member of the society, he alienates himself from the rights to a part of his life required to pay the dues.

We can't be soft to criminals. We have a duty to our families, to our beloved ones and to the society in general to protect them, and keep them from harm's way. Since in most heinous crimes the perpetrator alienates himself from his rights, we can in good faith and without loosing any sleep ask for their execution and proceed with legal homicide, if such a sentence was given.

 

[Gokul43201]

(emphasis mine)

Since in most heinous crimes the perpetrator alienates himself from his rights, we can in good faith and without loosing any sleep ask for their execution and proceed with legal homicide, if such a sentence was given.

Why is it that only the most heinous crimes count? What system determines which crimes lead to the denouncement of which rights?

 

[DanP]

Yet it is true that a jury in Texas may sentence a person to death, while a jury in Michigan (or Australia) can not. Clearly, the state plays a role in determining whether or not a jury may be allowed to put someone to death.

Actually, the problem is more general. In my view the legislative only serves the role to establish the maximum bounds of retributive punishment. And this is a political issue. It represent the will of the commonwealth, since the lawmakers are elected by the ppl.
In a democracy if you elect representatives which opposes the death penalty, and promise to forfeit it, it only means that majority of the humans in that region opposes this form of punishment.

The point is, neither legislative or executive have the power to take a live.

 

[DanP]

(emphasis mine)Why is it that only the most heinous crimes count? What system determines which crimes lead to the denouncement of which rights?

For the very simple reason that the punishment is, and rightly so, commensurate with the crime.

The systems is the will of the ppl, through free election of members of the community in the lawmaking organisms of the state.

 

[Gokul43201]

Actually, the problem is more general. In my view the legislative only serves the role to establish the maximum bounds of retributive punishment. And this is a political issue. It represent the will of the commonwealth, since the lawmakers are elected by the ppl.
In a democracy if you elect representatives which opposes the death penalty, and promise to forfeit it, it only means that majority of the humans in that region opposes this form of punishment.

The point is, neither legislative or executive have the power to take a live.

One can thusly describe any action of government as an action of the people. This makes it meaningless to even talk about an action of government.

 

[Gokul43201]

For the very simple reason that the punishment is, and rightly so, commensurate with the crime.

What determines whether a punishment is commensurate with the crime? By your argument below, it's nothing more than the whims of the people on any given day.

The systems is the will of the ppl, through free election of members of the community in the lawmaking organisms of the state.

So, it really has nothing to do with a rationale linking your actions to the inalienable nature of your rights. If "the ppl, through free election of members of the community in the lawmaking organisms of the state" feel like jaywalking, having homosexual sex, or disagreeing with an opinion of the government deserves a death penalty, then so be it. Heinous or not does matter.

 

[arildno]

It should first be noted what, historically, was meant by "inalienable".

It means something that cannot be handed over to someone else from the one possessing it.

You may alienate your right to driving your own car by renting it out, but you cannot sell yourself into a state of slavery.

Thus, "inalienable rights " means that there exist rights that cannot be transferred from on person to another by means of a contract.

Inalienability is, therefore, a limitation upon what sort of contracts are to be regarded as valid contracts, and which are not.

Punishment is reserved upon them who refuse the validity of contracts as such, i.e, who has outlawed themselves, in some manner.

 

[DanP]

One can thusly describe any action of government as an action of the people. This makes it meaningless to even talk about an action of government.

The executive (government) has wide powers and liberty, but their bounds are also limited by the lawmakers. The actions of the government are not the actions of the ppl. However, the bounds of those actions are set by the freely and democratically ppl elected in lawmaking organisms.

THe division of the powers in a state exists exactly because governments needs to have bounds set in their actions, and because the ppl must have protection from potential abusses of power from government.

 

[skeptic2]

This makes no sense. First you say punishments are deterrents for law abiding citizens , then you say for gang members punishments are not a deterrent. This makes no sense whatsoever.

Frankly it seems a little obvious to me that to the extent that gang members murder, harsh punishments, including the death penalty, are not deterrents. People who are mostly law abiding I think do, for the most part, weigh the risks versus the benefits of murdering somebody before they decide to do it or not.

Second I don't know why you insist on the point that "punishment is not a deterrent". What good does it makes ? DO you propose not to punish anyone because the deterrent effect is minimal ? Let criminals roam free ?

Perhaps a better question is, why does punishment seem to be a deterrent for some people but not for others?

Let's go back to post #7.

People who commit crimes have at least one of two beliefs that people who do not commit crimes don't have. They are:

1. They won't get caught.
If they believe they won't get caught then it doesn't matter what the punishment is, it is ineffective in deterring the crime. This also seems fairly obvious to me. Only when one believes there is a reasonable chance of getting caught and punished is there a deterrence.

2. They are justified in committing the crime.
I think if you asked the average wife beater why he did it, he would say something to the effect of "She deserved it." I think this is even more applicable in murder of which many cases are the result of passion or retribution.

No, I do not propose to let criminals roam free. I did say that society must be protected from dangerous people. But I think the idea that crime can be reduced by increasing the severity of the punishment is flawed because it does not address those two beliefs.

One way of addressing those beliefs is through education. I think our schools should offer a civics class that would teach at the middle and high school levels, the expectations of society including the laws relevant to the students and why those laws are in place. They should also be taught how the criminal justice system works and what typical punishments are for offenses. For instance I don't think many teens realize that a shoplifting conviction after the age of 18 goes on their permanent record and will affect their getting and keeping a job and even what kind of job they'll be able to get.

 

[DanP]

What determines whether a punishment is commensurate with the crime? By your argument below, it's nothing more than the whims of the people on any given day.

If you consider yourself as a human voting on the whim of the day, yes, this is so. Then again,
if this is your civic sense, you deserve anything is coming to you from the ones you voted for.

 

[Gokul43201]

If you consider yourself as a human voting on the whim of the day, yes, this is so. Then again,
if this is your civic sense, you deserve anything is coming to you from the ones you voted for.

Care to make a rational defense of your argument instead of wagging your finger at me?

What I consider myself to be need have no bearing on what I consider the majority of the voting population to be. And the ones I voted for do not make policy aimed only at me, their policy affects those that did not vote for them too.

 

[DanP]

What I consider myself to be need have no bearing on what I consider the majority of the voting population to be. And the ones I voted for do not make policy aimed only at me, their policy affects those that did not vote for them too.

The basis of democracy is free elections. If you cannot identify yourself with the majority of the voters, and you feel insufficiently represented by the opposition, jump the hypothetical "Berlin Wall"

 

[Gokul43201]

(That's hardly a relevant argument to the point being made here, and not even a sensible one, IMO, but I shan't follow that line of discussion).

So it seems you admit that there is, in fact, no rational construct for determining what kind of crime denounces what kind of right, other than the whims of the people at the given time.

 

[DanP]

So it seems you admit that there is, in fact, no rational construct for determining what kind of crime denounces what kind of right, other than the whims of the people at the given time.

You are deeply mistaken. It appears to me that you are the one who looks at the elective and lawmaking processes as a simple "whim" of the masses, while the "elite, who knows better", is disgusted by the majority.

 

[DanP]

(That's hardly a relevant argument to the point being made here, and not even a sensible one, IMO, but I shan't follow that line of discussion).

Excuse me, but your opinion that lawmaking process is a "whim" is hardly a rational argument as well and it's IMO an elitist PoV.

 

[Gokul43201]

You are deeply mistaken.

Thanks for the unqualified assertion. Let me know if you have more than that.

It appears to me that you are the one who looks at the elective and lawmaking processes as a simple "whim" of the masses,

I said nothing about the lawmaking process...

while the "elite, who knows better", is disgusted by the majority.

...nor anything about any kind of "elite".

 

[DanP]

Thanks for the unqualified assertion. Let me know if you have more than that.

Your unqualified assertions on the lawmaking process as a "whim" deserves no better answer. Let me know if you have more of that.

 

[arildno]

Frankly it seems a little obvious to me that to the extent that gang members murder, harsh punishments, including the death penalty, are not deterrents.

SO?
Deterrence does NOT constitute the justification for punishment!