News Death Penalty for cut and dried cases?

[arildno]

"Taking away" (justly) is not the same as "alienate", dudley sharp!

For example, properties held in mortmain (i.e, where the owner cannot sell it) can, as far as I know, be expropriated by the state, in the same manner that other properties can be expropriated.

Thus, you can have "inalienable rights" that you YOURSELF have no power to alienate to another (some would say this is the barrier against de-criminalizing euthanasia), but that OTHERS (i.e, the state authority) CAN remove those rights from you.

 

[dudleysharp]

Purposes of Punishment

We disagree. Without a purpose, punishment is merely cruel.

I agree. Punishment has many purposes, some of which are:

Why do parents punish their children for transgressions? I think it easy to understand sanction of a child, by a parent, is a reflection in love.

They want the child to understand the level of transgression, which is reflected in the degree of sanction (retribution), that the expected and hoped for result of that sanction is teaching, to encourage sorrow and apology that will be reflected in improved behavior, that such rehabilitation will result in a better person that will improve the total moral good (rehabilitation and redemption).

Few are so naive as to believe that any or all of these can or will take place in many or most circumstances with criminals within a criminal justice system. It does, however, recognizes that sanction/retribution is an essential requirement, which has a hoped for restorative and rehabilitative effect.

In other words, the retributive model, by definition, has within it, restoration, rehabiitation, deterrence, example, upholding of the social contract, and many more.

 

[arildno]

I'd rather say that if punishment does not have a purpose, then it is an automaton inflicting it, rather than a human being.

We have, by our nature, purposes for everything we do, but those purposes do not necessarily form the the basis of legitimacy for the given action (that would be an end jusifying the means situation)

 

[nismaratwork]

Dudelysharp, you can quote multiple times in ONE post... please.

DanP: Harsher prison terms can keep rapists from raping, and drunk drivers from driving; that doesn't require death. For the "treatment", in the US, that would have to occur after a crime, but given the repeated crimes such people commit, it would save a lot of lives and property. I'm not getting into a debate about Minority Report -esque "justice", just an alternative after the fact. Part of life is the reality that everyone isn't going to behave properly, and that's a risk built into it all. It's terrible, but not as much as a system which could be so easily abused as "treating" those who are yet to commit a crime.

 

[Office_Shredder]

And only in those cases. This would actually drastically reduce the number of people sentenced to death.

How many cases have every base covered, including the admission of guilt that can't be disputed? Sure, people have falsely confessed, but their confessions were dismissed because they didn't know all of the facts.

If an admission of guilt is required, don't you think it odd that if two people commit the same crime, only the person who admits to it during interrogation is killed?

You're no longer killing murderers, you're killing people for the crime of confessing

 

[dudleysharp]

don't you think it odd that if two people commit the same crime, only the person who admits to it during interrogation is killed?

You're no longer killing murderers, you're killing people for the crime of confessing

Unequal justice is inevitable, as in all human endeavors.

The confession doesn't get you executed, even if it is a death penalty crime. Many confessions are attached to plea bargains which result in lesser sanctions.

Even in those cases when there is a confession, without a prior agreement, most death penalty eligible trials (2/3) result in a punishment less than death.

 

[nismaratwork]

Unequal justice is inevitable, as in all human endeavors.

The confession doesn't get you executed, even if it is a death penalty crime. Many confessions are attached to plea bargains which result in lesser sanctions.

Even in those cases when there is a confession, without a prior agreement, most death penalty eligible trials (2/3) result in a punishment less than death.

Do you have a link for that 2/3rds and the "lesser sanctions" bit? Either way, forced confession are often the sign of a system that is failing at a basic level, so why trust it at the ultimate level? You've done more to dissuade than persuade. Finally, the inevitability of injustice is not an excuse to stop seeking perfection. In the attempt, you get closer to your goal, even while accepting that human endeavors are necessarily imperfect. Your arguments, while plentiful, are factitious.

 

[dudleysharp]

Do you have a link for that 2/3rds and the "lesser sanctions" bit? Either way, forced confession are often the sign of a system that is failing at a basic level, so why trust it at the ultimate level? You've done more to dissuade than persuade. Finally, the inevitability of injustice is not an excuse to stop seeking perfection.

the 2/3rds figure is from "Just Revenge: Costs and Consequences of the Death Penalty" By Mark Costanzo.

He's email is online if you wish to verify.

I am not sure what you want with regard to "lesser sanctions"

On the topic of erros and improving the system, we agree, as we do on forced confessions.

 

[dudleysharp]

show me

Your arguments, while plentiful, are factitious.

They have been well tested and survived.

If you would like to test them, again, in this forum, I would be more than happy to reply.

 

[nismaratwork]

They have been well tested and survived.

If you would like to test them, again, in this forum, I would be more than happy to reply.

You said that many confessions are attached to pleas which lead to lesser sanctions... what is "many"? Thank you for the reference for the 2/3rds figure, I'll have to snag that book from the library, or google-books if that portion is there.

 

[dudleysharp]

You said that many confessions are attached to pleas which lead to lesser sanctions... what is "many"? Thank you for the reference for the 2/3rds figure, I'll have to snag that book from the library, or google-books if that portion is there.

I have no idea of what the actual number might be. About 95% of all cases are plea bargained. And many capital cases are plea bargained down to life. Plea bargains do not exist without a confession of guilt.

 

[mheslep]

Quoting John Stuart Mill on the deterrence aspect of the death penalty for pre-meditated murder:


http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/course...th_penalty.htm

But the efficacy of a punishment which acts principally through the imagination, is chiefly to be measured by the impression it makes on those who are still innocent; by the horror with which it surrounds the first promptings of guilt; the restraining influence it exercises over the beginning of the thought which, if indulged, would become a temptation; the check which it exerts over the graded declension towards the state--never suddenly attained--in which crime no longer revolts, and punishment no longer terrifies.

That's a lot of punch for one sentence. This, the impact on those that abide by society's rules, is so often left out of the criminal punishment discussion and is the most important, most relevant part IMO. I'll add that a system of punishment deters not only the innocent from declining into temptation, but also deters the innocent victim from extra legal retribution because there is a system. I'f I'm cut off in traffic, or I suffer a late night house invasion I know that there is a legal system in place that we as a civilization have agreed on ('the social contract') to administer punishment for the offender. Even absent the fear that I myself may get caught for personal retribution, there remains the knowledge that I abandoned the civilized system to do so.

 

[arildno]

Another aspect of having a sufficiently just system of justice is that having such a system, the inhabitants will feel a stronger sense of belonging to that society, and thus regard it as worthy of "fighting for", against internal and external attacks.

Having a system of justice most inhabitants regard as a bad joke, even if few of them commit criminalized actions, will drastically reduce the system's resilience, it it will wither away with a whimper in the face of an attack (political, ideological or whatever else).

Note that regarding your justice system as a bad joke doesn't necessarily just mean an over-lenient system of laws, a draconian system can look equally bad, or even worse.

This was actually the case when John Stuart Mill lived, when thefts of objects above the value of 30 shillings could lead to a death penalty.

This led to an exceedingly arbitrary system of pardoning, so that the ACTUAL practice of justice was a complete mess, with some speedy, "hanging judges" pushing through executions for crimes that in other districts were just waived away, or that pardon was easily gained (formally, from the King).

 

[DanP]

I'f I'm cut off in traffic, or I suffer a late night house invasion I know that there is a legal system in place that we as a civilization have agreed on ('the social contract') to administer punishment for the offender.

There was a high profile case here. In a nutshell ... A thief entered the house of a couple, the women was pregnant. The thief somehow managed to wake up her and scared her to death, then the husband got up, the thief became violent. He shoot the thief killing him instantly. Note that the thief did not poses a firearm.

The case was labeled self defense, and rightly so, I would add. He who invades your manor, threatens your women, tries to steal your possessions for which you worked hard, deserves to die. In this case, the law would have been more merciful with the criminal, should he just run away from the home when the owners got up, and apprehended later. But he decided to threaten their well being, in addition to their property. The thief got what he deserved.

Sure there where here as well a lot of soft hearts beings crying after the life of the criminal, his right to life, the sanctity of life and other platitudes, calling the husband a murderer.

Shooting dead the one(s) who performs a late night home invasion is not punishment, is self defense. The legal system in place should never deter self defense, and should even make the institution more permissive, in that that it should even allow disproportionate force to protect your property, your life and the life of your family.

 

[arildno]

Shooting dead the one(s) who performs a late night home invasion is not punishment, is self defense. The legal system in place should never deter self defense, and should even make the institution more permissive, in that that it should even allow disproportionate force to protect your property, your life and the life of your family.

Well, where do you draw your line?

Should people allow to kill others, claiming they did so in order to protect their honour?

For example, as among the Romans, that a father who caught his married daghter in flagrante in his own home, he had the right to kill the adulterous daughter and her lover? (The husband did NOT have this right, although the jurist Ulpian urges leniency in cases of men killing their adulterous wives)

 

[DanP]

Well, where do you draw your line?

Defense of life , well being (self or any 3rd party for both) , and of the "manor" in its totality. At least this is my view.

For example, as among the Romans, that a father who caught his married daghter in flagrante in his own home, he had the right to kill the adulterous daughter and her lover? (The husband did NOT have this right, although the jurist Ulpian urges leniency in cases of men killing their adulterous wives)

Pater familias was indeed a very important institution in the roman society. As far as I know, the Right of life and death over the members of the extended family was quite seldom exercised, but I might be mistaken.

 

[arildno]

Defense of life , well being (self or any 3rd party for both) , and of the "manor" in its totality. At least this is my view.

What does "well being" mean?

Is to be "dishonoured" sufficient grounds for undermining "well being" in such a degree that it is right and proper to kill, either in order to protect honour, or, by killing, reclaiming it?

 

[DanP]

What does "well being" mean?

Is to be "dishonoured" sufficient grounds for undermining "well being" in such a degree that it is right and proper to kill, either in order to protect honour, or, by killing, reclaiming it?

Depends who you ask. If you ask an American man coming from a southern culture of honor the answer would probably be yes. I do not believe so.

 

[arildno]

Pater familias was indeed a very important institution in the roman society. As far as I know, the Right of life and death over the members of the extended family was quite seldom exercised, but I might be mistaken.

You are, in the sense that because the exercise of potestas patriae ("father's might") was a private family matter, actual cases of such exercise wouldn't be matters of public discussion, and hence, the knowledge of them would remain extremely localized, hardly ever to be written about by historians, since:
a) They probably didn't know about most such cases that were committed
b) Whatever cases they did know of, it is likely they approved of them, and didn't bother to spill ink over them
c) That cases they knew of, but didn't personally approve of weren't written about, either, since this was "family business", rather than "public business" and "politics", which were the main topic for history writing.


Due to these features, the extreme paucity of sources on these issues is unsurprising, and cannot be seen as implying the rarity of occurence of these types of actions.


In a similar vein, you won't found much discussion over the actual treatment or slaves, within slave societies, nor will you find much written material on husband/wife-violence, since this, in most societies, ALSO was a private family business.

 

[vertices]

I agree. Punishment has many purposes, some of which are:

Why do parents punish their children for transgressions? I think it easy to understand sanction of a child, by a parent, is a reflection in love.

Children should NEVER be punished - senseless violence teaches them nothing, and to have to resort to this only shows terrible parenting. No explain to them why their actions are wrong.

In other words, the retributive model, by definition, has within it, restoration, rehabiitation, deterrence, example, upholding of the social contract, and many more.

this is false.

Erm, how by definition is it possible to have restoration and rehabilitation, if there's capital punishment?

I've had a quick read of your other posts. What I am arguing is that the DP doesn't undo the crime and the finality of it means it is inherently cruel. There is simply no humane way to take a life.

Crimes like murder, etc are symptomatic of a culture of violence - this is what we, as a society, need to address.

 

[Office_Shredder]

I have no idea of what the actual number might be. About 95% of all cases are plea bargained. And many capital cases are plea bargained down to life. Plea bargains do not exist without a confession of guilt.

Evo suggested that a clear cut case of murder should allow a swift execution. At some point it seemed to be decided that for the case to be clear cut the accused has to confess. I wasn't arguing that the current system kills people for confessing, I was stating that the proposed new system would be killing people for confessing

 

[skeptic2]

Referring to Skeptic2's assertion that: "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.
2. They are justified in committing the crime."

I think some criminals hold those beliefs, but not all.

A deterrent, to be effective, only needs to deters some.

All prospects of a negative outcome deter some. It is a truism. The death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the least likely of all criminal sanctions to violate that truism.

Another truism is that it is not a deterrent for those who commit crimes, not even "The death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions". Why not? Why doesn't the most severe of criminal sanctions deter the crimes it was intended for?

Yes, punishments do deter some crimes as I have already said. The issue is why doesn't it deter all crimes? This was the issue I was addressing.

Criminals who try to conceal their crime do so for only one reason -- fear of punishment. Likely, more than 99% of all criminals, including capital murderers, act in such a fashion. Fear of capture does not exist without an expectation of punishment.

This doesn't mean that they sit down before every crime, most crimes or even their first crime, and contemplate a cost to benefit analysis of a criminal action. Weighing negative consequences may be conscious or subconscious, thoughtful or instinctive. And we instinctively know the potential negative consequences of some actions. Even pathetically stupid or irrational criminals will demonstrate such obvious efforts to avoid detection. And there is only one reason for that -- fear of punishment.

When dealing with less marginalized personalities, those who choose not to murder, such is a more reasoned group. It would be illogical to assume that a more reasoned group would be less responsive to the potential for negative consequences. Therefore, it would be illogical to assume that some potential murderers were not additionally deterred by the more severe punishment of execution.

As legal writer and death penalty critic Stuart Taylor observes: "All criminal penalties are based on the incontestable theory that most (or at least many) criminals are somewhat rational actors who try so hard not to get caught because they would prefer not to be imprisoned. And most are even keener about staying alive than about avoiding incarceration."

Based upon the overwhelming evidence that criminals do respond to the potential of negative consequences, reason supports that executions deter and that they are an enhanced deterrent over lesser punishments.

This is all so obvious and simplistic that it hardly deserves a response, except for the statement "Criminals who try to conceal their crime do so for only one reason -- fear of punishment." I never said criminals don't fear punishment, I said they believe they won't get caught. The reason for for concealing their crime is precisely so they won't get caught. If you dispute my claim that most criminals believe they won't get caught (excepting those who commit crimes believing they are justified in their actions), why then would someone commit a crime with a possibility of a death sentence believing he will be caught?

 

[Evo]

Evo suggested that a clear cut case of murder should allow a swift execution. At some point it seemed to be decided that for the case to be clear cut the accused has to confess. I wasn't arguing that the current system kills people for confessing, I was stating that the proposed new system would be killing people for confessing

People already get the death penalty for my scenario. I think you're saying that people would avoid the death penalty by not confessing. So I'll retract the need for a confession if the evidence is strong enough. This particular case met all of the criteria, including a confession.

 

[DanP]

R
Yes, punishments do deter some crimes as I have already said. The issue is why doesn't it deter all crimes? This was the issue I was addressing.

This is a non-issue.

 

[nismaratwork]

This is a non-issue.

Agreed, I think we've gone into personal and moral areas, not false assertions of deterrence. This about fundamentally different viewpoints, across a spectrum from Vertices' through those such as myself who don't abhor killing, but believe that the process of holding someone for execution is cruel and unusual, into Evo and DanP. I can't, as a moral relativist claim a high-ground here, just that I personally can imagine being dragged to my certain death, and that level of terror is not something I wish to inflict on another human being. For me, I'd rather see the practice abolished, not because killing some people would not be expedient, but because it shouldn't be necessary to inflict psychological torture to do it. There is no way I can imagine to avoid that element of the death penalty that fits in US law, and if it can't be made to fit, it should be banned.

DanP, you strike me as the most "Old Testament" of the group, and I respect that. I simply cannot wholeheartedly agree on some elements of it. Evo has a good point too, but I don't believe in "cut and dried" and I my other points have already been made. It's kind of refreshing to have a debate that isn't just polarized to opposing views, but represents an overlapping spectrum.

 

[skeptic2]

I agree. Punishment has many purposes, some of which are:

Why do parents punish their children for transgressions? I think it easy to understand sanction of a child, by a parent, is a reflection in love.

They want the child to understand the level of transgression, which is reflected in the degree of sanction (retribution), that the expected and hoped for result of that sanction is teaching, to encourage sorrow and apology that will be reflected in improved behavior, that such rehabilitation will result in a better person that will improve the total moral good (rehabilitation and redemption).

Few are so naive as to believe that any or all of these can or will take place in many or most circumstances with criminals within a criminal justice system. It does, however, recognizes that sanction/retribution is an essential requirement, which has a hoped for restorative and rehabilitative effect.

In other words, the retributive model, by definition, has within it, restoration, rehabiitation, deterrence, example, upholding of the social contract, and many more.

Incarceration of criminals, often results in the criminal becoming worse not better. Unlike Dudley, I'm not an expert and I don't have all the answers but I do know that what we have doesn't work very well. My opinions are based on my own observations of what works and what doesn't.

 

[brainstorm]

related issue: should people with a life sentence without parole be allowed to opt for physician-assisted suicide or should they be required to serve their sentence as long as possible? What if they have children who have the right to communicate with their parent at various moments in their life? Is it fair to take away these children's opportunity to talk to their parents as adults either by allowing suicide or because they are executed?

 

[DanP]

Is it fair to take away these children's opportunity to talk to their parents as adults either by allowing suicide or because they are executed?

Yes, it is fair to execute. The killer knew he had kids when he committed the crime. He made his choice.

 

[arildno]

We have a 12 yo daughter whom we have almost never punished. The most severe has been very short timeouts when she was under 5. Since she could first understand English we have explained why we do things. I have never used the phase "Because I say so" with her. When she has made mistakes we have explained why what she did was wrong, what she should have done instead and why, and let it go at that. Her teachers consistently tell us she is the best behaved kid in her class. I have always tried to speak to her with the same courtesy I would use with adult.

I believe that most misbehavior in children comes from anger resulting from being bullied and punished by their parents.
http://nopunish.net/pwp-ch1.htm

Incarceration of criminals, often results in the criminal becoming worse not better. Unlike Dudley, I'm not an expert and I don't have all the answers but I do know that what we have doesn't work very well. My opinions are based on my own observations of what works and what doesn't.

You shouldn't post crackpot links with the following HOWLER:

In their beliefs about methods of treating children and training dogs, there was not a smidgen of difference! It is as if America had learned its parenting skills at the American Kennel Club's obedience school. Is it any wonder that the nation's children are screwed up? A dog's nature is to be servile. But a child's nature is to be free.

Do you understand why this is a howler?

 

[Evo]

Incarceration of criminals, often results in the criminal becoming worse not better. Unlike Dudley, I'm not an expert and I don't have all the answers but I do know that what we have doesn't work very well. My opinions are based on my own observations of what works and what doesn't.

Is your statetment "Incarceration of criminals, often results in the criminal becoming worse not better" just your own opinion then? If not, you will need to provide studies that support your claim. Thanks.

 

[Evo]

related issue: should people with a life sentence without parole be allowed to opt for physician-assisted suicide or should they be required to serve their sentence as long as possible? What if they have children who have the right to communicate with their parent at various moments in their life? Is it fair to take away these children's opportunity to talk to their parents as adults either by allowing suicide or because they are executed?

No matter how I read that, it makes no sense. What are you trying to say?

 

[arildno]

Crimes like murder, etc are symptomatic of a culture of violence -

Nope. It is symptomatic of human nature.

 

[nismaratwork]

You shouldn't post crackpot links with the following HOWLER:


Do you understand why this is a howler?

Heh...

Seriously however, some people have a lovely temperament, and others don't. If your kid happens to be a completely straight arrow out of the womb, lucky for you, most fall somewhere in the middle. I'm not a fan of spanking, but to say that MOST misbehaving comes from "anger... and being bullied and punished by their parents" is genuinely insane. This is contrary to even the most gentle and basic theories and practices of raising children.

Evo: If it isn't, it's going to require a mountain of evidence before I stop laughing with Arildno.

Brainstorm: No, they shouldn't be allowed to shorten their sentence through state assisted suicide; it is the responsibility of the state to keep them alive as they are the ward of the state. If they manage to kill themselves, on a personal level I say more power to them. As for kids, you think they do better with a psychopathic parent in their lives?

 

[DanP]

I've had a quick read of your other posts. What I am arguing is that the DP doesn't undo the crime and the finality of it means it is inherently cruel. There is simply no humane way to take a life.

The purpose of punishment is not to "undo the crime", but to punish the perpetrator.

Nothing undoes a crime. By this logic, we shouldn't do anything, just let them roam free.
As for "humane" ways to take a life, humans are the THE AUTHORITY on killing. We are the almost the only species which kills it's own, so Id say it's pretty much human :P

 

[Hepth]

We are the almost the only species which kills it's own, so Id say it's pretty much human :P

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic; there are a LOT of species that kill it's own, all for understandable reasons. Humans are probably the only one that has consideration for the method :)

 

[mheslep]

There was a high profile case here. In a nutshell ... A thief entered the house of a couple, the women was pregnant. The thief somehow managed to wake up her and scared her to death, then the husband got up, the thief became violent. ...

My point, or Mill's, was not directed at self defense under some clear and immediate threat of harm - by definition in that moment the judicial system has no time to act. My example applies where in a working system it is rationale to call the police, maybe provide the license of an escape vehicle. If I have some sense of commitment to the society, I call the cops and let them and the courts do their job because I believe it more or less works. If I have no such commitment because of my own pathology or because the system is joke, then I never call the cops and either go vigilante or cower in my residence.

 

[DanP]

My point, or Mill's, was not directed at self defense under some clear and immediate threat of harm - by definition in that moment the judicial system has no time to act. My example applies where in a working system it is rationale to call the police, maybe provide the license of an escape vehicle. If I have some sense of commitment to the society, I call the cops and let them and the courts do their job because I believe it more or less works. If I have no such commitment because of my own pathology or because the system is joke, then I never call the cops and either go vigilante or cower in my residence.

A home *invasion* as you so plasticaly defined it, its pretty much a self defense situation. Besides, my point is that you shouldn't need to call the cops, protection of the manor should be a right of the owner.

 

[vertices]

Nope. It is symptomatic of human nature.

This is not true. We are social animals, with a highly developed, innate sense of right and wrong. We are evolutionarily hardwired to be altruistic.

My point was that there are complex reasons as to why people commit crimes (for example, social deprivation/exclusion). The DP is a way for politicians to show us that are doing something substantive to tackle crime, a convenient way for them to ignore the real, underlying problems alluded to above.

 

[DanP]

This is not true. We are social animals, with a highly developed, innate sense of right and wrong. We are evolutionarily hardwired to be altruistic.

Are we living on the same planet ? We kill each other like common animals. We invented the burning at stake, hang drawn and quartering , decapitation, firearms, nuclear weapons, tanks, bombers, anti-personal mines, chemical warfare, poisons.

you know about the ~55 millions killed in WW2 . And yes, the ZK camps where altruistic humans where using cyclone B to kill women and kids. About Nagasaki and Hiroshima ?
the Atlantic slave trade and its 18 million victims
about Japanese Nanking agression ?
about Rwanda genocide ?
about Aremenian genocide ?
Bosnia Croatia and Serbia ?
Israel and the arab countries ?
Stalin and his regime and the 20 millions it killed ?I could go on. Humans and evolutionary altruistic. What a joke. Our whole history is a bloodbath. We are extremely cooperative when we find common grounds and interests, natural predators in rest. We didnt learn a thing in the last 2000 years. Only how to invent more and more means to kill other groups on this planet, and more effective weapons.

 

[arildno]

My point was that there are complex reasons as to why people commit crimes (for example, social deprivation/exclusion). .

This is simplistic crackpottery that never has had an iota of convincing evidence behind it.

 

[mheslep]

A home *invasion* as you so plasticaly defined it, its pretty much a self defense situation.

If you discover the intruder.

Besides, my point is that you shouldn't need to call the cops, protection of the manor should be a right of the owner.

Of course. I was inviting you to consider Mill's argument, not self defense.

 

[nismaratwork]

Are we living on the same planet ? We kill each other like common animals. We invented the burning at stake, hang drawn and quartering , decapitation, firearms, nuclear weapons, tanks, bombers, anti-personal mines, chemical warfare, poisons.


I could go on. Humans and evolutionary altruistic. What a joke. Our whole history is a bloodbath. We are extremely cooperative when we find common grounds and interests, natural predators in rest. We didnt learn a thing in the last 2000 years. Only how to invent more and more means to kill other groups on this planet, and more effective weapons.

I agree with you here, but I believe that Vertices is genuine in his view that people are fundamentally moral. In the end, we live in the same worlds in the same way that we perceive events to be simultaneous: it is all relative.

I also agree that a home invasion is (and is in law) ALWAYS a matter of self defense, but it's also one of the rare times when people shoot loved ones or pranksters they know, as in the anti-gun lobby's scare campaigns. To be fair, I think you did sidestep mheslep's offer to consider another view. You're clearly secure in your worldview, so why not consider another for a while? There are no absolutes (except maybe the speed of light in a vacuum), so even if you end believing that Mill's argument is bunko, it's worth discussion in this context.

When you have advocate the harshest possible penalty, it is incumbent upon you to consider other mindsets even if you're not changing where you stand.

Vertices: Lions and Chimpanzees are, in their unique ways, both social animals, and both have males which will kill the young of the existing group upon seizing control. Being social as a unit doesn't mean that violence doesn't play a role in social regulation. You clearly are passionate in your views, but you're not making a good case for them. As the only really pacifistic person I see here, you probably should give it a better and more rigorous attempt.


mheslep: If you're unaware of a crime, you can't act at all, never mind in self-defense. It's obvious that discovery of the intruder is implicit in an argument of home-invasion as self-defense.

 

[arildno]

This is not true. We are social animals, with a highly developed, innate sense of right and wrong. We are evolutionarily hardwired to be altruistic.

False implication.

It is certainly a fact that sociability, and conceptions of morality have a natural basis, but that this is part of human nature, too, does not in anyway make murder, rape, theft etc. into unnatural acts.

If you have difficulties with this, you might reflect upon Walt Whitman's words:

Do I contradict myself? I contain multitudes!

 

[dudleysharp]

Yes, it is fair to execute. The killer knew he had kids when he committed the crime. He made his choice.

Yes, he did. The unfairness is upon the criminal. The father's choices resulted in his children loosing their ability to communicate with them.

If that same father beat and raped his children, would it be

1) the father to blame for his children being put into foster care, where they would no longer be able to communicate with their father, or

2) the state agency to blame which legally removed the children from the fathers "care".

 

[dudleysharp]

restoration and rehabilitation

Erm, how by definition is it possible to have restoration and rehabilitation, if there's capital punishment?

Quite easily.

Let's presume that restoration and rehabilitation must take place before we die (just to remove reincarnation and other issues).

First, at least in the US, it takes about 10 years from sentencing to execution. That 10 years is quite a while. Obvioulsy enough time to seek restoration and rehabilitation, if that is what the murdeer wishes.

From a restoration and rehabilitation standpoint, the death penalty is like any early or earthly death, in that not matter the method of our deaths, be that by cancer, car wreck, execution, old age, etc., we only have the time of our lives within which to seek rehabilitation and restoration.

3) “. . . a secondary measure of the love of God may be said to appear. For capital punishment provides the murderer with incentive to repentance which the ordinary man does not have, that is a definite date on which he is to meet his God. It is as if God thus providentially granted him a special inducement to repentance out of consideration of the enormity of his crime . . . the law grants to the condemned an opportunity which he did not grant to his victim, the opportunity to prepare to meet his God. Even divine justice here may be said to be tempered with mercy.” Quaker, biblical scholar Dr. Gervas A. Carey (1) (p. 116).

4) Romano Amerio, a faithful Catholic Vatican insider, scholar, professor at the Academy of Lugano, consultant to the Preparatory Commission of Vatican II, and a peritus (expert theologian) at the Council.

“The most irreligious aspect of this argument against capital punishment is that it denies its expiatory value which, from a religious point of view, is of the highest importance because it can include a final consent to give up the greatest of all worldly goods."

"This fits exactly with St. Thomas’s opinion that as well as canceling out any debt that the criminal owes to civil society, capital punishment can cancel all punishment due in the life to come. His thought is . . . Summa, ‘Even death inflicted as a punishment for crimes takes away the whole punishment due for those crimes in the next life, or a least part of that punishment, according to the quantities of guilt, resignation and contrition; but a natural death does not.’ "

"The moral importance of wanting to make expiation also explains the indefatigable efforts of the Confraternity of St. John the Baptist Beheaded, the members of which used to accompany men to their deaths, all the while suggesting, begging and providing help to get them to repent and accept their deaths, so ensuring that they would die in the grace of God, as the saying went.” (2)

Some opposing capital punishment ". . . go on to assert that a life should not be ended because that would remove the possibility of making expiation, is to ignore the great truth that capital punishment is itself expiatory. In a humanistic religion expiation would of course be primarily the converting of a man to other men. On that view, time is needed to effect a reformation, and the time available should not be shortened. In God’s religion, on the other hand, expiation is primarily a recognition of the divine majesty and lordship, which can be and should be recognized at every moment, in accordance with the principle of the concentration of one’s moral life.” (2)

Some death penalty opponents “deny the expiatory value of death; death which has the highest expiatory value possible among natural things, precisely because life is the highest good among the relative goods of this world; and it is by consenting to sacrifice that life, that the fullest expiation can be made. And again, the expiation that the innocent Christ made for the sins of mankind was itself effected through his being condemned to death.” (2)

 

[DanP]

Yes, he did. The unfairness is upon the criminal. The father's choices resulted in his children loosing their ability to communicate with them.

If that same father beat and raped his children, would it be

1) the father to blame for his children being put into foster care, where they would no longer be able to communicate with their father, or

2) the state agency to blame which legally removed the children from the fathers "care".

Huh ? Would you like to communicate with your father after he rapes your tinny hole ? :P

 

[dudleysharp]

fear of punishment

I never said criminals don't fear punishment, I said they believe they won't get caught.

Why would criminals fear punishment if they never believe they will get caught? They wouldn't.

They all do fear punishment because they know they may be caught, with many having been already caught, multiple times.

Therefore, they attempt to improve their technique, hoping to lessen the probability of being caught, next time.

All criminals try and apply their own version of stealth for only one reason - they always know that there is the risk of being caught, that is the ONLY reason they try to apply stealth.

 

[dudleysharp]

Criminals getting worse

Is your statetment "Incarceration of criminals, often results in the criminal becoming worse not better" just your own opinion then? If not, you will need to provide studies that support your claim.

Evo, come on.

Are you not aware that criminals interact with more criminals in prison and that because of that criminals increase their knowledge to improve their trade - crime?

That prisoners hook up with other prisoners to continue criminal enterprise within prisons and later in the free world?

There are, sadly, countless cases of criminals getting much worse over time.

Are you not aware of those, without studies?

 

[dudleysharp]

Multi quote not working.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by vertices
Crimes like murder, etc are symptomatic of a culture of violence -

Nope. It is symptomatic of human nature.

sadly so true.

Thus Mother Theresa and Adolph Hitler. By all accounts that both had peaceful childhoods.

Technology changes, man does not.

 

[dudleysharp]

Reason

We are the almost the only species which kills it's own, so Id say it's pretty much human

Is there a species which doesn't kill their own?

In addition, several additional species MIGHT kill for some cause other than instinct.

Humans are distinctly different for the range of reasons within which we do kill, just as our reasons are more expansive for everything else we do, than any other species.