News Death Penalty for cut and dried cases?

[DanP]

I said nothing about the lawmaking process...

Since the bounds of punishments are established through lawmaking processes, in any democratic country, you actually did :P

 

[Gokul43201]

In any case, since you do not deny that there is no rational construct which determines what rights are to be absolved due to what crimes, I shall assume (until you demonstrate otherwise) that you are in agreement with it.

If homosexual sex is a crime in Texas today, but not tomorrow, and it's not a crime in New Mexico, Oklahoma or Louisiana today - I'd say that determination is clearly a representation of a whim rather than some fundamental relationship between actions and rights.

 

[Gokul43201]

Since the bounds of punishments are established through lawmaking processes, in any democratic country, you actually did :P

Sure, but I didn't call "lawmaking" a whim (whether or not I think it is), only "electing".

Why are you getting so hung up on the word "whim"? Would you prefer if I called it a "tasteful sensibility"?

 

[DanP]

In any case, since you do not deny that there is no rational construct which determines what rights are to be absolved due to what crimes, I shall assume (until you demonstrate otherwise) that you are in agreement with it.

This is politics, not mathematics . I do not have to demonstrate you anything, I only have to vote for a political group who is powerful enough to support the ideas of my social group.

You seem to insist that lawmaking process is irrational. Very well. I do not agree with you. I denied it time and again. But you can assume I do if it makes you happy.

 

[DanP]

Sure, but I didn't call "lawmaking" a whim (whether or not I think it is), only "electing".

Whats the alternative ? Give the power to a group of "powerful intelligent , god like beings, who know better", even if they are 1% of the elective mass ?

I prefer the elective process of today. It's as fair as we can have for the moment. It's the basis of democracy.

 

[Gokul43201]

This is politics, not mathematics . I do not have to demonstrate you anything, I only have to vote for a political group who is powerful enough to support the ideas of my social group.

This is a discussion forum, not a polling station.

Anyway, you've said what you have to say, and I have nothing more to add.

(Edited to add) Except this: I too prefer the elective system we have today, but that doesn't change my opinion on whether or not it is a system that reflects the whims of a population.

 

[skeptic2]

SO?
Deterrence does NOT constitute the justification for punishment!

This is an interesting topic.

And, YES, DanP, "deterrence" does not constitute the legitimizing basis for punishments, since then we could equally well adopt the Draconian legal code.

Nor is it relevant, in the perspective of deterrence, that the the one to be punished is ACTUALLY guilty, because you can get a very strong deterrent effect by punishing an innocent instead.


In short, deterrence is a secondary consideration, rather than a primary one.

It [punishment] does not have a "purpose".

Rather, through his crime, the criminal has fewer rights left than the non-criminal, and the imposition of penalties is an expression of this manufactured inequality of rights.

An inequality of rights manufactured by the action of the criminal himself.

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

 

[DanP]

If homosexual sex is a crime in Texas today, but not tomorrow, and it's not a crime in New Mexico, Oklahoma or Louisiana today - I'd say that determination is clearly a representation of a whim rather than some fundamental relationship between actions and rights.

The problem with this is that you seem to look at the issue as some kind of mathematical equation or a fundamental physical law. It is not.

It is social and political in nature. Various cultures and groups have different values, and they will go to different lengths to protect those rights. The relationships between those things represent the underlining values of the community. They are not "whims", more often then not they represent centuries of tradition and refinement in laws.

 

[DanP]

This is a discussion forum, not a polling station.

I agree, but then maybe you should present more rational arguments than assertions "demonstrate or I assume you agree with me". What you assume is really not my business, but when someone says "I don't agree with you", really, take his word :P

 

[DanP]

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

Foul play causes a social imbalance. The main purpose of the punishment is reestablishing the social balance.

Punishment does not have to be morally loaded with corrective or preventive effects. It seems that you believe that punishments are cruel and they have no reason to exist if they lack a determent effect. Which is false. Reestablishing the balance is enough purpose.

 

[arildno]

Foul play causes a social imbalance. The main purpose of the punishment is reestablishing the social balance.

I'd rather say punishment is a form of an exterioriation of the implicit social contract, in that by punishing, criminals AND non-criminals alike, becomes aware of the contract's existence.

Whether it can be said to "re-establish" anything, besides the belief that the system is working, is a matter upon which I harbour some doubts.

The overall justification of punishment, however, lies in the reduced rights of the criminal, the reduction occurring at the moment of the crime.
(we can do unto the criminal actions that we cannot do upon non-criminals, because the criminal has fewer rights (left).)

Further elements of the justification will determine, for example, whether or not a deserved punishment should be implemented.

 

[DanP]

Whether it can be said to "re-establish" anything, besides the belief that the system is working, is a matter upon which I harbour some doubts.

Im really curious what are those doubts. I find this very interesting.

 

[arildno]

Im really curious what are those doubts. I find this very interesting.

Well, the "social imbalance" argument typically tries to argue that the criminal has gained some sort of "advantage", that the punishment then re-appropriates.

This imagery works, I suppose, in the case of theft, but what "advantage" has the criminal gained by, say, a rape, that is "removed" by the punishment?

From my point of view, violating others' rights makes you an outlaw; upon the moment of the crime, you've already lost a number of rights, and are of less legal worth than the non-criminal.

And then, it is up to the society to find out how to treat that person according to his reduced status (according to the principle: "to each his due").

They MIGHT treat him just as before (non-punishment, or the granting of pardon, for example), but they are entitled to other actions against him as well.

 

[DanP]

Well, the "social imbalance" argument typically tries to argue that the criminal has gained some sort of "advantage", that the punishment then re-appropriates.

This is interesting. In my "imagery" the things worked differently. The society has taken damage when the crime was executed, and by punishment the loss is alleviated. I never thought that the perpetrator gains an advantage, which must be re-appropriated to the society. Somehow diametrically opposed to what you described. And I have to clarify here, I talk about society, not the individual victim. The loss of the victim can
be compensated with a civil action complementing the criminal process.

I agree with the outlaw issue.

 

[arildno]

The society has taken damage when the crime was executed, and by punishment the loss is alleviated.

Well, that is another imbalance argument.

The problem I have with that is the idea that society is somehow "enriched" by meting out punishment.

From what I see, we have a double loss situation, for the (punished) criminal AND society, both gets poorer.


As I see it, that double loss is incurred at the moment of the crime.

To punish justly, i.e, treating the criminal in a way according to his reduced status, but that would be inadmissible to treat a non-criminal might, possibly, offer some consolation to the victims/society t large, might induce some regrets in the criminal, but none of this provides the justification of punishment.

For example, a lot of criminals DO regret their actions sincerely&immensely, and would never think ever of doing anything like that again.

That does not, however, on its own, restore their status of equal legal worth with the non-criminal (and hence, inadmissibility of punishment).

If the society is to be said to be "enriched", it lies in exercising the greater scope of freedom of action upon the criminal that his self-inflicted loss of rights has given society.

 

[nismaratwork]

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.

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.

It's that "heinous" bit that makes this all so difficult. I also find it difficult in practice to reconcile emerging knowledge of neurobiology and psychology with a death sentence.

Evo: You talked earlier about entertaining prisoners, but the reality is that humans require some amount of baseline stimulation or we go stark raving mad. We already keep plenty of people in a cell 23 of 24 hours in the day, and the results are NOT pretty. When someone is deprived of freedom for the rest of their natural life, and in the tender mercies of the state and their fellow prisoners, I think it's factitious to talk about paying for their upkeep. We're paying for their punishment, which requires basic living.

In the end, killing in self defense is different from killing someone who is confined. The latter is cold blooded, and while I can't say it's wrong (being a moral relativist), I find it hard to accept.

 

[DanP]

Evo: You talked earlier about entertaining prisoners, but the reality is that humans require some amount of baseline stimulation or we go stark raving mad. We already keep plenty of people in a cell 23 of 24 hours in the day, and the results are NOT pretty. When someone is deprived of freedom for the rest of their natural life, and in the tender mercies of the state and their fellow prisoners, I think it's factitious to talk about paying for their upkeep. We're paying for their punishment, which requires basic living.

So isn't it all so much more merciful to put them out of the misery ? A lethal injection and we can all move on :P

To be honest, if someone would kill one of my family, the best punishment ever IMO would be to let me kill them and walk unharmed by law.

I also find it difficult in practice to reconcile emerging knowledge of neurobiology and psychology with a death sentence.

Really what's the point ? Now you going to tell me that they are irresponsible ? Unfortunately, in the vast majority of cases they are.

 

[vertices]

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.

inalienable rights are moral rights - take human rights for example, which is basically a statement that cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of human beings, is always morally wrong, under any circumstance. I consider this to be a truism.

So when Mr Obama made it clear to the world that "we don't torture", what he was implying was that any contract that alienates human rights is by definition null and void.

It's interesting you mentioned slavery because this institution was only abolished when the government and public grew to accept the idea of inalienable rights (even if they weren't defined as such)...

 

[DanP]

It's interesting you mentioned slavery because this institution was only abolished when the government and public grew to accept the idea of inalienable rights (even if they weren't defined as such)...

This is a wrong example in this context. Nobody can sell you in slavery, that's true. Nobody can kill you, your right to life is protected. But you can alienate your so called "inalienable" rights. When you kill, you forfeit your rights.

Obama is right. The civilized states "don't torture". But others do. In doing so they forfeit their rights and can be punished. At large scale we do this by them bombing back into stone age with our superior technology. At small scale we either confine them in prisons, either kill them in some places. Legally.

 

[vertices]

This is a wrong example in this context. Nobody can sell you in slavery, that's true.

But slavery was contractual be it explicitly or implicitly. The principle argument of the anti slavery movement was simply that slavery denies people of their inalienable rights.

Nobody can kill you, your right to life is protected. But you can alienate your so called "inalienable" rights. When you kill, you forfeit your rights.

That's what people believed when slavery was practised. It's not something 'civilised states' believe.

In doing so they forfeit their rights and can be punished. At large scale we do this by them bombing back into stone age with our superior technology. At small scale we either confine them in prisons, either kill them in some places. Legally.

erm, we're talking about the death penalty. What's your point?

 

[loseyourname]

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.

I get what you're saying, but I don't think it's problematic. Acceptable strategies to achieve a mission can be constrained by other considerations, like, well, justice. You can build that into the mission statement if necessary. I believe the Federal Reserve Board, for instance, has a mission of promoting full employment while controlling inflation, which are competing goals.

Criminal justice systems can formulate their mission to be punishing criminals in order to reduce crime (the classic task-purpose mission statement format we use in the military).

But I was actually thinking more broadly when I first wrote that anyway, beyond any actual criminal justice system, in that the purpose of having a criminal justice system in any society is to reduce crime. Punishing non-criminals is one means of doing so, and as you point out, has been used by certain societies. There was an episode of Star Trek in which every offense was a capital offense, even walking on the grass. That's a possible strategy to reduce crime.

Our task, in determining the specific strategy of our particular criminal justice system, is to figure out how to reduce crime using 1) means that are effective and 2) means that are morally permissible. Capital punishment is pretty hotly contested on both counts.

 

[arildno]

Nobody can kill you, your right to life is protected. But you can alienate your so called "inalienable" rights.

Nope.

You cannot sell yourself into slavery.

Furthermore, the original meaning of an "inalienable right" to life is that you cannot, by means of a private contract, let somebody get to kill you.

While these concepts sound weird, the first one is well documented, people DID sell themselves into slavery.

And, saying that you cannot enter a valid contract so that another individual can kill you, effectively criminalized the phenomenon of duelling, even, that is especially, in its voluntary contractual form.

 

[DanP]

That's what people believed when slavery was practised. It's not something 'civilised states' believe.

No , back then it was believed that certain classes of beings have less rights than others.
That we can sell race X in slavery because they are no better than animals.

Today we recognize many of the so called "natural" rights to all humans. We cannot take
those rights from them. But again, they themselves can act in such a way that they forfeit their rights. We don't take it from them, they basically give them away when they do a crime.

erm, we're talking about the death penalty. What's your point?

erm, why bring in Obama and torture then ?

 

[DanP]

Furthermore, the original meaning of an "inalienable right" to life is that you cannot, by means of a private contract, let somebody get to kill you.

You can. .But in most of the states the contractor will be tried as a criminal. However, several states have seen the light in this issue IMO. For example the legislative changes from 2002 from Netherlands in the area of euthanasia are a big step ahead. I think Switzerland has very permissive laws in this area too.

 

[arildno]

You can. .But in most of the states the contractor will be tried as a criminal. However, several states have seen the light in this issue IMO. For example the legislative changes from 2002 from Netherlands in the area of euthanasia are a big step ahead. I think Switzerland has very permissive laws in this area too.

That is merely evidence of a growing perception of life as an alienable right.

Earlier, both euthanasia or duelling were criminal actions, on basis of life being an inalienable right in the sense of issues about which valid private contracts concern themselves.

We still don't have the right to duel each other..

 

[vertices]

No , back then it was believed that certain classes of beings have less rights than others.
That we can sell race X in slavery because they are no better than animals.

Today we recognize many of the so called "natural" rights to all humans. We cannot take those rights from them. But again, they themselves can act in such a way that they forfeit their rights. We don't take it from them, they basically give them away when they do a crime.

as regards the bit in bold: yes we do. Remember though, natural rights are inalienable. They are moral rights that reflect our humanity.

erm, why bring in Obama and torture then ?

To illustrate the concept of inalienable rights. Let me ask you this: do you think someone who's killed babies for fun, should forfeit his rights not to be subject to cruel and inhumane treatment (ie torture) - ie. would it be okay to torture him?

 

[lisab]

That is merely evidence of a growing perception of life as an alienable right.

Earlier, both euthanasia or duelling were criminal actions, on basis of life being an inalienable right in the sense of issues about which valid private contracts concern themselves.

We still don't have the right to duel each other..

...so we have to resort to flame wars on interweb forums. Not nearly as satisfying .

 

[DanP]

as regards the bit in bold: yes we do. Remember though, natural rights are inalienable. They are moral rights that reflect our humanity.

You insist on their inalienability. I am not. I consider that someone who commits serious offense (as defined in the laws of the realm), and is found guilty before a court of law, is forfeiting his rights.

The universality of moral rights is a noble idea, but IMO is hopelessly idealistic. Look out on the window. We kill each other, we steal from each other, we lie for a garbagety job, we cheat on each other, whatever. Humans are just not very moral animals. Our "humanity" has nothing sacred in it. It has no morality per se. The society, as it is, is hold in balance by a number of forces of various natures. I am more interested in a stable and fair society, then in idealistic philosophy of what it is to be human.

To illustrate the concept of inalienable rights. Let me ask you this: do you think someone who's killed babies for fun, should forfeit his rights not to be subject to cruel and inhumane treatment (ie torture) - ie. would it be okay to torture him?

Ill let things such as torture (and interpretation of the definition of the word ) for secret services :P

I would be satisfied with his execution after due legal process. But then again, I would not loose any sleep if the prison guards would beat him daily before feeding him breakfast. Its up to them. For me justice is served if he is executed.

 

[DanP]

...so we have to resort to flame wars on interweb forums. Not nearly as satisfying .

Would you like to be my second ?

 

[arildno]

Would you like to be my second ?

Against me, you won't last a minute.


Runs and hides from excessively bad pun..[/size]