The Death Penalty

I think killing should only justified if it is necessary to prevent something worse. If it's the best option at a given time. And the death penalty is simply never the best option.

The only reason for it is revenge. Or "justice" as some call it. Giving them what they "deserve". First, I don't think we should kill people because they "deserve" it. O Nly if it is to prevent further harm. But even if you want to dish out "justice" you can do it just as well without killing them. Thus it isn't the best option. It is an unecessary killing and hence murder in the moral sense.

Appeal to Worse Problems. That your proposed definition of Justice could be crueler does not change the fact that it is still needlessly cruel.

This, I agree with. A life sentence is a death penalty; the execution method is time. In both cases, you are permanently vetoing a person's existence as a member of society, declaring that the person will never be suitable, and removing them forever.

The main differences between the two

1. A corpse can't escape from prison.
2. A corpse also can't be set free. You can retract a life sentence if you find out you were mistaken.
3. The state has to financially support the continued existence of a life prisoner.
4. But the costs are still lower than the death penalty, because
5. A life sentence requires a significantly lower standard of conviction. We do everything in our power to prove and re-prove guilt beyond any possibility of doubt^{WATCH OUT} Which is not to say we don't still make mistakes for Death inmates, but are content to toss Life prisoners in jail and hope that if they're innocent, the truth will come out in time.

To be blunt, if a person will never again have an ability to be part of and/or influence society, why does it matter what they think?

edited 16th Aug '15 10:48:14 AM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.

Prisoners still have power to influence society in ways that we let them, but as they are prisoners we can control the influence they have.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

Time also means they can reconcile.

The death penalty means they cannot. This makes them false equivalences to each other due to the fact one isn't a permanent solution(that is almost always violent too. That's at least been somewhat fixed due to constant research to find a humane option for the death penalty, and so far, the secondary version of the gas chamber, which is painless and quick, and the only other humane option is simply letting them live out their lives). In addition, it's been noted that the real punishment is forcing them to accept what they did and living with it. But the fact of the matter is, many people have the chance to change their ways or at the very least move on overall. That's something that should be the most important part for lives, to help them fix their mistakes. Punishment in itself is worthless as a concept, as we've been through the fact it really does not solve any crime at all. If we're using the official definitions. Removing them from society so they can't harm others is really the only thing actually keeps society safe and avoids harm in every way. Throwing them in Prison should not be done to punish them either, but to help them instead to reconcile/etc.

That's also why life without parole shouldn't exist at all. Chance of parole should be mandatory, but they still have to prove they can function in society without issues(namely the ones that got them in prison in the first place). That's not always possible, but everybody deserves the chance to fix their mistakes. They're still human beings, after all. They will never cease to be.

By your definition of "needlessly cruel", maybe. I feel that there are people who deserve death, and the death penalty should be set up to kill these people as humanely as possible. My point with the bit that you quoted was that I'm not advocating it out of a sense of revenge (ie, a desire to see the condemned suffer), because I'm suggesting a method of execution that deliberately eliminates as much suffering as possible. I'm trying to address the "you don't want Justice, you just want Revenge!" argument by demonstrating the difference between the two.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

Funnily enough, I think thats what happens in Norway. With one exception.

edited 16th Aug '15 1:21:48 PM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On

Sounds neat.

Okay, I have no idea where to find the information on The Quisling. Could you quickly describe the event so I get how it's an exception?

That said, I have noticed the UK countries are far more maturing in handling the law than some other areas. It's pretty nice to see. The US may be following in their footsteps if that article is any indication. That said, with only one possibly Death Penalty method, any other method is completely removed, meaning no money is spent on them. At least this reduces suffering severely. Since besides the secondary gas chamber(does it have an official term for the one using notricide or whatever it was? I can't even remember the exact gasses used), all the other ones can be screwed up and causes suffering, which is just plain not acceptable to do to anyone, period, as it's immediately immoral and cruel and unusual punishment.

Simple really — Vidkun Quisling, Nazi collaborator and head of the German puppet Government in Norway 1940-45. Almost universally despised during that time.

edited 16th Aug '15 2:12:37 PM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On

Ah, now I get what you meant. The person was an exception to the "only remove a continuous threat" due to his heinous acts. Correct?

By your definition as well. You also think death is more cruel than imprisonment, otherwise you wouldn't regard it as the ultimate punishment. And that it is unnecessary is evident. You don't need it for deterrence, you can't use it for teaching a lesson or rehabilitation and you can give out justice without it. Most societies do. So it is indeed unnecessary and cruel.

I do so love it when people take my words and apply their assumptions to it, instead of actually reading what I say and judging it based on that.

1) I said that the death penalty is a harsher punishment than life in prison without parole, not that it was "more cruel". I don't think that either punishment in general nor the death penalty specifically is necessarily cruel at all, much less that one is by definition more cruel than the other.

2) Saying that the death penalty being unnecessary is "evident" because "you can give out justice without it" is just begging the question, as my position is that there are some crimes so bad that death is the only just punishment for committing them.

3) "most societies do" is a terrible argument for basically anything. Can society exist without using the death penalty? Sure, absolutely — I'm not arguing that getting rid of the death penalty would cause the downfall of civilization. But the fact you can do things that way doesn't mean you should.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

Sophistry. What's the difference between harsh and cruel? So it is unnecessarily harsh then.

You're begging the question. Namely that someone deserves punishment. Which, as was noted already is just the same shit as revenge. You want to make someone suffer for what they did. Plain and simple. The death penalty offers no further deterrence, no rehabilitation, no nothing. All it does is cause suffering for the sake of causing suffering. You see punishment in itself as something worthwile but nothing else in the justice system serves solely this purpose. Nor should it. It's an archaic, purely emotional response.

Indeed. Your only point is essentially: "Make them suffer for what they did!" But as humanely as possible!

If you don't want them to suffer, then why should they deserve death?

Yeah in the end some of us don't believe in a justice system build around punishment, some of us want a justice system built around protection and rehabilitation. Punishment is a means to those goals, not an end in of itself.

edited 16th Aug '15 6:34:10 PM by Silasw

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

Cruelty is by definition unnecessary. Harshness is not. You ever heard the phrase "harsh but fair"? Harsh just means "not gentle". Cruelty, on the other hand, is deliberately inflicting unnecessary pain. That's why the US Constitution prohibits "cruel" punishment but not "harsh" punishment.

You're the one asserting that punishment is equivalent to revenge without backing up that assertion. I've already explained upthread what the difference between punishment and revenge is.

You're also mistaking the form of my argument. "Criminals deserve punishment in line with the seriousness of their crimes" isn't my argument, it's my premise. It's a first principle, not a conclusion. It's something I feel to be true to the point where I take it as a starting point for the rest of my logic. If you disagree with the idea that the punishment should fit the crime, then we have very little basis for conversation in the first place.

They deserve death because they've committed crimes that are deserving of death. But "they deserve to die" is not the same thing as "they deserve to die horribly and painfully".

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

And what do you do then with people who cannot or will not be rehabilitated?

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

You lock them up to protect everyone else. There's no reason to kill anyone under that type of justice system.

Keep trying because we might be wrong in our assessment (though obviously don't waste resources) and keep them locked up for the reason for protecting others.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

The only difference between those statements is that the first one is more personal.

Punishment should fit the crime and punishment as a end to itself are different things. You can agree with the former without agreeing to the latter.

There's no such thing as cannot. Only will not.

"Cannot" is a matter of mental illness, and it's still wrong even then because such illnesses can be treated. My BFF is a high-functioning paranoid schizophrenic; the only reason these people are considered incurable is because of societal stigma.

Every criminal is a human being who committed his crime for human reasons. It's comforting to think of them as hellspawned demons made of 100% evil who could never be capable of anything but murdering and raping a maximum amount of people unless they're stopped by a 12-gauge shotgun. This dehumanization helps us feel better about ourselves, because we know we could never become them.

But it is a lie, one we use to avoid the ugly truth: that every criminal is a human being who made a choice that every single one of us is entirely capable of making.

edited 17th Aug '15 10:37:26 AM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.

Psycopathy has no cure.

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes

Neither does schizophrenia, but the people who suffer it can still learn to function despite their illness. That's what "high-functioning" is: people who still suffer the symptoms, but have learned to look past them and still live a normal life.

Also, psychopathy doesn't actually exist. It's a buzzword used to describe several different ailments.

edited 17th Aug '15 10:39:52 AM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.

No. No they cannot, in the case of psycopathy. Jeff "Toddler-eatin'" Jefferson will, indeed, eat your toddlers if you let him out. Sure. Jeff can perfectly work at the local Denny's, or be CEO of a minor firm pretty succesfully.

But he will eat toddlers, because he cannot stop it, or help it, and this is not a succesful reintegration into society.

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes

Untrue. Ignoring that there's no such thing as a toddler-eating disease, he may suffer a compulsion to eat toddlers but giving into that compulsion is still a choice he makes. Rehabilitation is teaching him not to make that choice.

We all have the ability to eat toddlers. It is a choice any human is capable of making, and though someone with a compulsion may find it harder to make the right choice, they are still entirely capable of it.

edited 17th Aug '15 10:48:27 AM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.

Paedophilia is also awfully difficult to manage. And, that's not a specific disorder, as such. :/

There are many such issues that fare poorly with current techniques. And, they're not all predominantly social in their root causes or primary effects, either.

Worse, many low-functional issues are not very manageable, despite the best efforts of those who have them, or those around them. I complain about how little society as a whole accommodates those with additional hurdles in their lives... but, that doesn't negate the actual causes and effects of the hurdles. -_-

edited 17th Aug '15 10:50:08 AM by Euodiachloris

Ok. See. If you go by DSM, or ICD standards, do you know who qualifies for the Antisocial personality disorder? Me. Probably you. Probably a lot of us. In many respects, those sorts of buzzwords are subject to a lot of assumptions and are stolen by the public.

This is historically because the term psycopathy and its studies that still reign the ICD and DSM descriptions of them are based on the work of Hervey Cleckley, from the 1940s. You might recognize the 1940s as the decades-were-super-modern-studies-were-not-really-a-thing and also holy-shit-is-that-a-nuke.

More modern studies on psycopathy make differences between it, and sociopathy. There are people like Robert Hare, and more MRI based studies that point out at deficits in emotional response that are more biologically based than learned behaviors.

So when I tell you that Toddler-eatin Jeff will eat your toddlers, you can take that to the bank because I got non-70-year-old-data to speak for that. Also take your kids away from him. He is not a good babysitter.

If you refer to studies and people like James Fallon then understand the alleles and expressions of disorders can vary a lot genetically, and he was lucky enough to be a functioning enough psycopath. But check the rest of his family: 7 accounts of murders, for example speak that there is nature and not just nurture at play here.

And while nurture is indeed a vital part of any disorder and how it can be expressed much more healthy, it is down to dumb luck if we can find a person young enough to teach them in a healthy manner, and if we are talking about the Death penalty, we are not talking young children. We are talking adults firmly set and fully grown.

edited 17th Aug '15 11:06:14 AM by Aszur

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes