News Save Troy Davis's Life - Act Now to Stop Execution in Georgia

[mheslep]

Well, then they're just unlucky. But, we've not done anything to actually reduce the lifetime of the party, thus still leaving the maximum possible timespan for appeal, should new evidence arise. By ending their life, we are reducing such a timespan.

Yes, but prison none the less takes years of the person's life, and that also is not correctable, ever. New evidence and reversal just stops further harm.

 

[mheslep]

To my mind the best arguments both for and against the death penalty:

Against:
Justice Blackman's conclusion that the death penalty as enacted by the American people is at its bottom 'retributive', his word. Retribution for its own sake is not justified under the precepts of our legal system, nor should we seek to permit it to be so.

For:
Dr Willard Gaylin, a psychiatrist, author of "The Killing of Bonnie Garland", and sometime guest on Fred Friendly's "The Constitution: A Delicate Balance" TV series in the 80's. Gaylin's argument is that society must show and express moral outrage, that the system of justice must in its action show abhorrence in the assessed punishment that is commensurate with the crime. This is necessary as a substitute for individual vengeance. That is, the punishment must show that the system works, and thus I am not entitled to grab a shotgun and go after someone who took a hammer to [Bonnie's] head. Capital punishment is not required under this argument, but it is permitted if so determined by the people's representatives.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I'm against capital punishment for the reasons presented here in this thread - that we do not seem to be able to construct a system competent to mete out a form of punishment with this degree of finality.

Now, if we did have a system that we could put confidence into not execute innocent people, I could entertain deterrence as a justification for capital punishment - but "moral outrage"? We need a system that is sober and unyielding and unrelenting, but not one that is squawking and righteous and out to trumpet contempt of the convicted. Let the tabloids trumpet the contempt, they're not liable when the system gets it wrong, as it so often does. Charging the justice system with expressing moral outrage would get us the squawking and righteous kind of justice system.

I'm an atheist but something from the Christian New Testament that I think has wisdom is "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." In our society the judicial branch of our government is the group whom we charge with deciding who is guilty and meting out punishment, but we don't consider them to be without sin.

⚛​

 

[vanesch]

For:
Dr Willard Gaylin, a psychiatrist, author of "The Killing of Bonnie Garland", and sometime guest on Fred Friendly's "The Constitution: A Delicate Balance" TV series in the 80's. Gaylin's argument is that society must show and express moral outrage, that the system of justice must in its action show abhorrence in the assessed punishment that is commensurate with the crime. This is necessary as a substitute for individual vengeance. That is, the punishment must show that the system works, and thus I am not entitled to grab a shotgun and go after someone who took a hammer to [Bonnie's] head. Capital punishment is not required under this argument, but it is permitted if so determined by the people's representatives.

If that's the reason, then I'd be more of an advocate for physical torture. That's much more of a vengeance, and much more of a proof of abhorrence and testimony of moral outrage. It is also much more flexible in the possibility of commensuration with crime.

What would you prefer ? 5 years of "at least 2 hours of wet electrical shocks a day and one 3rd degree burn using a hot metal object on at least 10 cm^2 of skin every second week" or death penalty ? We could also allow torture visits by the victim or the victim's family to deal with their sense of vengeance if they want to. Hell, we could even let them do some torture sessions themselves.

And if the crime is worse, then we can turn this into 3 hours of shocking a day, 8 years of this treatment etc... Very flexible.

 

[mheslep]

If that's the reason, then I'd be more of an advocate for physical torture. That's much more of a vengeance, and much more of a proof of abhorrence and testimony of moral outrage. ...

I think that confuses the two - vengeance and moral objection. They are very much different things. Vengeance is much more about self indulgence and blaming the individual, moral outrage is about the behaviour, or should be. Hate the sin, not the sinner.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I think that confuses the two - vengeance and moral objection. They are very much different things. Vengeance is much more about self indulgence and blaming the individual, moral outrage is about the behaviour, or should be. Hate the sin, not the sinner.

Moral outrage that leads to a specific preference for executing the sinner seems rather more like hating the sinner than hating the sin.

⚛​