Death Sentence Vs Life Imprisonment

[arunbg]

Deciding if something should be a law and the punishment associated with violating it clearly a political matter.
To think that that is a matter that can be decided by applying reason and logic is simply nonsense. It is similar with abortion, it is a political issue.

I think you are viewing the issue too objectively.
If people were to always accept popular opinion, there would be no debates, and the world would be stagnant.Popular opinion changes.

Indeed, it is a question of morals, but how are morals formed in the first place? There should be some logical basis, shouldn't there ?

 

[MeJennifer]

"Consider the question: What kind of punishment so you think a serial killer deserves"

Even more basic:
Why do you think he "deserves" a "punishment?

Well many people find satisfaction in seeing others punished for violating something that is against the law. Some find revenge a sweet thing.

In particular, why is it necessary to inflict any further "punishment" on a person other than to take those measures towards him that we are entitled to due to considerations for our own safety?

Well I can think of a few reasons. One is as a deterrent or as a form of revenge.

 

[MeJennifer]

I think you are viewing the issue too objectively.

Well I consider that a compliment!

If people were to always accept popular opinion, there would be no debates, and the world would be stagnant.Popular opinion changes.

So are you in favor of democracy, or should a comittee of "wise" men who reason everything decide on things?

Indeed, it is a question of morals, but how are morals formed in the first place? There should be some logical basis, shouldn't there ?

Not neccesarily.

 

[arildno]

Well many people find satisfaction in seeing others punished for violating something that is against the law. Some find revenge a sweet thing.

Yeah, let's base our society on our eagerness to inflict misery upon others.
Hope you'll be happy there.

 

[MeJennifer]

Yeah, let's base our society on our eagerness to inflict misery upon others.

Well also that is a human emotion.
We did not evolve from angels you know.

You ask me why, I answer and now you do not like that answer.

 

[quantumdude]

Logic is just a mechanical decision procedure that enables us to determine whether an inference is valid or not. It does not come equipped with a way to assign truth values to statements about the real world such as, "The death penalty is morally wrong." The only way to assign a truth value to that statement is to first adopt a system of morals, anyone of which can not be anything but arbitrary.

 

[MeJennifer]

Logic is just a mechanical decision procedure that enables us to determine whether an inference is valid or not. It does not come equipped with a way to assign truth values to statements about the real world such as, "The death penalty is morally wrong." The only way to assign a truth value to that statement is to first adopt a system of morals, anyone of which can not be anything but arbitrary.

You think!

 

[arildno]

Logic is just a mechanical decision procedure that enables us to determine whether an inference is valid or not. It does not come equipped with a way to assign truth values to statements about the real world such as, "The death penalty is morally wrong." The only way to assign a truth value to that statement is to first adopt a system of morals, anyone of which can not be anything but arbitrary.

True enough, and MeJennifer has chosen to build her society upon her eagerness to inflict misery.

 

[MeJennifer]

True enough, and MeJennifer has chosen to build her society upon her eagerness to inflict misery.

Yeah I must be a barbarian!

 

[arildno]

Just stating a fact.

 

[quantumdude]

It may or may not be a fact, but it is certainly not deducible from anything that's been posted here. You're just jumping to conclusions. Some people (such as myself) who support the death penalty for sufficiently heinous crmies, sincerely hope that it never needs to be used. There is no logical inconsistency in holding the view that brutal murder should be met with execution and not being eager to mete out such a terrible punishment.

 

[arildno]

I haven't said that meting out death penalty per se need reflect an eagerness to inflict misery.

What I have said (and I stand by that) is that to punish, to do something out a desire to revenge something, does, indeed, show an eagerness to inflict misery.

Nor have I said there don't exist cases in which actions born out of a revenge wish might be defensible.

 

[quantumdude]

What I have said (and I stand by that) is that to punish, to do something out a desire to revenge something, does, indeed, show an eagerness to inflict misery.

You're still jumping to conclusions. The concept of revenge has not one whit to do with the concept of eagerness to inflict misery. There is nothing inconsistent with holding the conviction that brutal murders should be avenged with capital punishment, and being filled with dread at the prospect of carrying out that punishment.

 

[arildno]

..brutal murders should be avenged with capital punishment, .

Why?

 

[selfAdjoint]

There is nothing inconsistent with holding the conviction that brutal murders should be avenged with capital punishment, and being filled with dread at the prospect of carrying out that punishment

Nothing purely logically, no, but that doesn't mean it's coherent. If you truly believe that some prisoners should be killed, then to hope they will not be killed is to be sure very human, but not very coherent. Do you feel guilty about your dread, since according to you the punishment is righteous?

 

[arildno]

There is nothing inconsistent with holding the conviction that brutal murders SHOULD be avenged with capital punishment, .

Just a further clarification needed:

Do you mean we have a moral DUTY to murder someone by means of execution, and that thus US alone among Western countries is to be considered a moral country?
(The others failing in their murder duty, that is..)

That execution of some criminal may be a DEFENSIBLE reaction (along others), and hence, that we may be entitled to choose that particular reaction is something quite different from saying we SHOULD execute someone.


In my opinion, there certainly exist situations in which someone may be said to have a DUTY to kill somebody else (for example, a police officer facing a hostage situation might, in the aftermath, be criticized for not killing the kidnapper).
I cannot, however, see, any reason why it there should exist a duty for someone to kill a locked up criminal.

 

[zikezx]

for me both..depending on the crimes they have..but must be the exact suspect..there should be enough evidence to show the prsoner is really guilty...

_______________________________________________

http://www.healthxp.com/nutritone-microsizer-p-156.html
www.healthxp.com
Experience the Benefits of Health Innovations

 

[meteor]

Leaving aside all the possible reasons that can be taken into account: deterrent, revenge, economic factors, ... my main reason for choosing no is my peace of conscience. I couldn't kill another person (even a murderer) if somebody offered me a fortune.. How could I kill an intelligent person created by Mother Nature...?

 

[arildno]

How could I kill an intelligent person created by Mother Nature...?

What about a loved one asking to be released from his/her pains?

 

[meteor]

What about a loved one asking to be released from his/her pains?

I expressed in another thread that I'm anti-euthanasia. But that's a totally different subject

 

[pallidin]

I believe that, with execution, we lose opportunities to really study the psyche of the extremely deviant/disturbed convict. Yet, perhaps enough has been done on that level that it is not really neccessary. I don't know.

Executions, by and large, have always been about sending a message to society, versus sending a message to the condemned.
To be expected, though, is the potential for a profound transformation in the condemned psyche's mind when given a date-for-death, and most especially as that date draws nearer.

Several months ago I found it somehow interesting to read the "last statements" of condemned prisoners through various Dept. of Correction links on the web.

Some would say "Let's go, Warden, I'm ready"
Others would recite religious teachings.
And others would express remorse or sorrow for their crime(s); usually directed specifically at surviving victims families or to their own families for having "gone wrong"

An interesting read if you have the time.

 

[arildno]

I believe that, with execution, we lose opportunities to really study the psyche of the extremely deviant/disturbed convict. Yet, perhaps enough has been done on that level that it is not really neccessary. I don't know.

A good point.
Today's psychiatry is on the level of renaissance/early modern age (1600s) physics.
There's a lot to learn yet.

 

[MeJennifer]

my main reason for choosing no is my peace of conscience. I couldn't kill another person (even a murderer) if somebody offered me a fortune..

Ok, no problem with that argument.

How could I kill an intelligent person created by Mother Nature...?

Well, while I accept and respect your personal choices in this matter your argument seems a bit odd to say the least since mother (?) nature's common theme is killing.

And what is up with this notion that murder must be some mentally ill kind of behavior? What ever happened to the crime passional, or the codes of honor? The husband who murders the wife's admirer or the son who vows to kill the rapist of his sister.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying such crimes should go unpunished, but I certainly understand the motivations.

And would we really argue against the notion that such acts are not closer to living life fuller than those ascetic positions of "I could not kill anything because I would harm mother nature's creatures"?

 

[meteor]

since mother (?) nature's common theme is killing...

Yes, that's true as life. However it seems to me that more Intelligent creatures tend to avoid murder, for example I don't know of any physicist or mathematician ever accused of murder (though maybe some case can exist). So, if we consider physicists and mathematicians as the pinnacle of Intelligence, then if want to be Intelligent ourselves we must follow their steps (i.e. avoid murder)

 

[arildno]

Hmm..ever heard of the UNA-bomber, meteor?
He was a trained (and fairly good) mathematician.

 

[MeJennifer]

Yes, that's true as life. However it seems to me that more Intelligent creatures tend to avoid murder, for example I don't know of any physicist or mathematician ever accused of murder (though maybe some case can exist). So, if we consider physicists and mathematicians as the pinnacle of Intelligence, then if want to be Intelligent ourselves we must follow their steps (i.e. avoid murder)

Flawed reasoning: to become intelligent one mimicks the behavior of intelligent people.

 

[Gagan A]

I don't want to repeat what has been said over and over again but I think this short story by Anton Chekhov voices what arunbg started this thread for (Maybe he too read it in his high school, as I did).
http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/Bet.shtml" by Anton Chekhov

 

[arunbg]

Logic is just a mechanical decision procedure that enables us to determine whether an inference is valid or not. It does not come equipped with a way to assign truth values to statements about the real world such as, "The death penalty is morally wrong." The only way to assign a truth value to that statement is to first adopt a system of morals, anyone of which can not be anything but arbitrary.

That was exactly what I had in mind.There is I believe , a system of morals already in place, no ? All laws I believe are derived by applying logic to these morals.
For eg, you can't argue from logic why we should preserve human life, we might as well go about killing each other.
But once you state human life is essential, then it becomes a moral and applying reasoning and logic, we find that murder is illegal .

MeJennifer, if you always like to go with popular opinion (democracy), can you explain why popular opinion changes ? Certainly, you have to say that an opinion in minority once, becomes a majority. Why this change ?
Why do you think people realized that their opinion was flawed, even with the great no. supporting it ? Is it probably because a few "wise men" while remaining within the moral framework of society, reasoned that the opinion was flawed and more and more people accepted their reasoning ?

The only valid reason for death penalty as I see it, in view of accepted morals, is deterrance. But now, if statistics claim otherwise, I would accept it as enough logic and reasoning to look for an alternative.

Arun

PS: Oh yeah, sure I read that story Gagan, but it doesn't provide anything by way of an answer, don't you think .

 

[Gagan A]

It does not answer our question, but it does tell that if you live alone for 15 years alone in a cell you have the time to become all knowladge-able
Then there was another story that I read in my school. I have forgotten it's name, though. It was about an executioneer who takes up the job to make money because he needed it badly. He does his job considering he has to execute a 'number' and not a 'criminal/person'. And once his son has to be executed and he sees the watch he gave to his son ( a unique watch), but he still has to execute him.
It was really touching, although it was just a story. But I think death penalty should be abolished. But it is also justifiable in some cases. Who would not want that Osama be executed?

 

[Kurdt]

Maybe the death sentence does not have any logical conflict but it may have a moral conflict (of course this depends on you view). If you set up a society and create laws designed to uphold a societal morality you have to define punishments for anyone who breaks those laws. If somebody is found guilty of breaking a law then we must assume that certain freedoms as a member of that society have been forfeited otherwise there is no real punishment.

Most western punishments comprise of restricting the freedom of the individual either by tagging and setting curfews or imprisonment depending on the crime they have comitted. For a petty offense such as theft probably a financial punishment such as a fine and compensation to the victim.

The gripe that many have with the death sentence is varied. Some people believe that if there is a miscarriage of justice then the accidental death of an innocent man is too much of a risk to take. Others believe it shows a particularly barbaric and ugly side to humanity that should not have a place in a judicial system that forms part of a society as it sends out the wrong messages to people. Others believe that a valuable oppourtunity is lost to learn something about what made that person do that and try and change their world for the better.

Now throughout this thread I have heard claims of we are who we are through a course of years of evolution. I simply ask this. Can a society evolve any further if they simply accept their situation and do nothing to attempt to learn about their mistakes and change it? Fair enough a species can evolve through genetic mutations and survival of the fittest genes technique but a society is something comprised of shared ideas and ideas do not evolve if people do not study their situation learn from them and propose new ideas for improvement. This is why I can not justify the death penalty because it provides no oppourtunity to study the individuals involved in the most horrific of crimes and thus no oppourtunity to improve in areas of society that have failed them or in areas of health care or anything else that may have caused an individual to comit that crime

Also it seem rather hypocritical to me to say that killing someone is one of the most horrific crimes then set it as a punishment. I do realize that a different set of values and freedoms has to be set for these people who break laws but death is just a step too far. I thiknk we've sufficiently gone forward from the eye for an eye business as a society and that kind of vengeful act certainly does not give me or any of the people I know any pleasure.