The death penalty

The Nihilist

Contributor
Sep 14, 2006
6,074
490
✟16,289.00
Faith
Atheist
I didn't bother to look at your link and I likely won't, so I don't know the details. Did he escape? That's a problem with the specifics of imprisonment, and is a matter for bureaucrats, rather than philosophers. Did he kill people while in prison? Again, bureaucrats. Was he released and went on to kill others? This is a danger inherent in societies; the primary supposition of a social existence is that you and the other members can trust each other. If you can and do, then that's awesome, but if you can't or don't, then life is going to be nasty, brutish, and short.
 
Upvote 0

Penumbra

Traveler
Dec 3, 2008
2,658
135
United States
✟11,036.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Private
I didn't bother to look at your link and I likely won't, so I don't know the details. Did he escape? That's a problem with the specifics of imprisonment, and is a matter for bureaucrats, rather than philosophers. Did he kill people while in prison? Again, bureaucrats. Was he released and went on to kill others? This is a danger inherent in societies; the primary supposition of a social existence is that you and the other members can trust each other. If you can and do, then that's awesome, but if you can't or don't, then life is going to be nasty, brutish, and short.
I read it. He didn't escape.

He was convicted and set to be executed for murder, but apparently offered money for parole, and the supreme court said the death penalty would be unjust. He then started taking school in prison, was denied parole, got a lawyer to point out that there was a problem with his original court conviction, so he got parole, and then killed more people. (Wikipedia instead says he was paroled for overcrowding reasons.) Then later he was executed for murder.
 
Upvote 0

The Nihilist

Contributor
Sep 14, 2006
6,074
490
✟16,289.00
Faith
Atheist
I read it. He didn't escape.

He was convicted and set to be executed for murder, but apparently offered money for parole, and the supreme court said the death penalty would be unjust. He then started taking school in prison, was denied parole, got a lawyer to point out that there was a problem with his original court conviction, so he got parole, and then killed more people. (Wikipedia instead says he was paroled for overcrowding reasons.) Then later he was executed for murder.

Thank you for filling me in, but I don't see how this pertains to the matter at hand. A faulty prosecution or conviction is not a matter of interest in a discussion on the appropriateness of the death penalty. But again, Penumbra, thank you.
 
Upvote 0

Penumbra

Traveler
Dec 3, 2008
2,658
135
United States
✟11,036.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Private
Thank you for filling me in, but I don't see how this pertains to the matter at hand. A faulty prosecution or conviction is not a matter of interest in a discussion on the appropriateness of the death penalty. But again, Penumbra, thank you.
Yes, I agree. The case mostly shows a faulty judicial process, not a faulty prison process. If he had been kept in prison instead of finding a loophole in his case to obtain parole, he would not have been able to murder again.

The only way I can see that it may relate to a prison issue is if overcrowding was a factor in why they let him go, as wikipedia states. The United States has the highest number of people in prison in the world.

-Lyn
 
Upvote 0

The Nihilist

Contributor
Sep 14, 2006
6,074
490
✟16,289.00
Faith
Atheist
Yes, I agree. The case mostly shows a faulty judicial process, not a faulty prison process. If he had been kept in prison instead of finding a loophole in his case to obtain parole, he would not have been able to murder again.

The only way I can see that it may relate to a prison issue is if overcrowding was a factor in why they let him go, as wikipedia states. The United States has the highest number of people in prison in the world.

-Lyn
Yes, our system of incarceration is fubar.
 
Upvote 0

The Nihilist

Contributor
Sep 14, 2006
6,074
490
✟16,289.00
Faith
Atheist
As much as some people should be put to death, it's impossible to prove one's guilt with 100% certainty. The problem being that human perception is, let me phrase it gently, fallible.

That being said, the state of the penitentiary system of the USA is a whole other discussion.

100% certainty isn't the legal standard that we use, at least not here in the United States; it's proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And really, the defendant has all the advantages: trial by jury, presumption of innocence, protection against unreasonable search, and so on. Yeah, sometimes we get it wrong, but as a society, we're careful enough about it that, as long as everyone is doing what they should, we can all have a clear conscience about it.
 
Upvote 0

blook

Newbie
Sep 4, 2008
87
5
✟7,732.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
100% certainty isn't the legal standard that we use, at least not here in the United States; it's proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And really, the defendant has all the advantages: trial by jury, presumption of innocence, protection against unreasonable search, and so on. Yeah, sometimes we get it wrong, but as a society, we're careful enough about it that, as long as everyone is doing what they should, we can all have a clear conscience about it.
I know it isn't the legal standard for nothing can be known with 100% certainty, and thats exactly why i oppose the death penalty. Putting to death an innocent man or woman is inexcusable, and this will always be possible.
 
Upvote 0

tcampen

Veteran
Jul 14, 2003
2,704
151
✟18,632.00
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I think there is another argument for the death penalty not listed in the OP:

There are some offenses so great that the the ultimate punishment of death is justified.

This goes from the position that the punishment should fit the crime, and that some crimes are so great that the only just punishment for the offender is to give up his life.

When the whole principle of justice is that the punishment fit the crime, I am not offended by the notion that a man who brutally rapes and tortures a child for several days before panfully murdering her is deserving of the death penalty - in principle.

The only issue at that point, for me, is whether the offender receives his due process of law before any such sentence is pronounced - but that is a different issue.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
I think there is another argument for the death penalty not listed in the OP:

There are some offenses so great that the the ultimate punishment of death is justified.
How exactly is that determined? What are the criteria? How is "greatness of offense" quantifiable?
In lack of more precise arguments, your statement reads like "death penalty is sometimes justified because it is sometimes justified".

This goes from the position that the punishment should fit the crime,
Sounds good, but what does it even mean?
That the punishment should be as horrible for the perpetrator as the crime was for the victim?
Something else?
and that some crimes are so great that the only just punishment for the offender is to give up his life.
'It´s just because it´s just.' Would you be willing to try to elaborate on the - so far - missing logical steps that would help make your statement more than but circular?

When the whole principle of justice is that the punishment fit the crime, I am not offended by the notion that a man who brutally rapes and tortures a child for several days before panfully murdering her is deserving of the death penalty - in principle.
When/if the whole principle of justice is that the punishment fit the crime, I would be offended by that notion - because the punishment does not include raping and torturing the perpetrator before painfully killing him.
So what does "the punishment should fit the crime" is actually supposed to mean? To me, it simply sounds like empty talk that can be used to justify any punishment for any crime - unless it comes with quantifiable criteria that allow us to determine which punishment fits which crime.
 
Upvote 0

tcampen

Veteran
Jul 14, 2003
2,704
151
✟18,632.00
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
How exactly is that determined? What are the criteria? How is "greatness of offense" quantifiable?
In lack of more precise arguments, your statement reads like "death penalty is sometimes justified because it is sometimes justified".
There is an elevated response comensurate with level of crime committed. We don"t imprison a person for going 10 mph over the speed limit, nor only a fine for rape. LWOP for certain horrific cases of murder with special circumstances seems like an inadequate expression of accountability.

Sounds good, but what does it even mean?
That the punishment should be as horrible for the perpetrator as the crime was for the victim?
I am not saying we should rape and torture the offender. I'm only suggesting that accountability should reflect the seriousness of the crime, and sometimes that means loss of one's own life is appropriate.

When/if the whole principle of justice is that the punishment fit the crime, I would be offended by that notion - because the punishment does not include raping and torturing the perpetrator before painfully killing him.
So what does "the punishment should fit the crime" is actually supposed to mean? To me, it simply sounds like empty talk that can be used to justify any punishment for any crime - unless it comes with quantifiable criteria that allow us to determine which punishment fits which crime.
Such quantifiable criteria is actually codified where the death penalty exists. The forfieture of ones own life under theses very rare circumstances still does not amount to a response as great as the crime committed, so trying for such clearly is not the goal.

Suppose a person rapes and murders 4 children in a particular community. Should that person get the same life in prison as the man who only rapes 2 children and does not murder them? Can we understand why one crime is greater than the other, so why is it so difficult to think the punishment for one should be greater than the other?

Death penalty is referred to as the ultimate punishment because there is nothing higher. Thus, once you hit a certain level, the ultimate punishment is all that's left.
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
There is an elevated response comensurate with level of crime committed. We don"t imprison a person for going 10 mph over the speed limit, nor only a fine for rape. LWOP for certain horrific cases of murder with special circumstances seems like an inadequate expression of accountability.
Yes, I do understand the idea of a progressive catalogue of punishments in relation to the severity of crimes.
I do not understand how that makes an argument for a particular form of punishment being acceptable (and this was your original argument: the punishment must fit the crime, therefore the death penalty is acceptable).


I am not saying we should rape and torture the offender.
I know you aren´t saying it, but I was saying it (being the devil´s advocate). We are discussing the limits of punishment, and which form of punishment can be considered to "fit the crime".
Your argument (which actually and so far isn´t even an argument but comes down to 'I personally feel that the death penalty fits crime X and Y") can likewise be used to justify torture, mistreatment, rape as forms of punishment ("because I feel they fit crime A and Z").

I'm only suggesting that accountability should reflect the seriousness of the crime, and sometimes that means loss of one's own life is appropriate.
I do understand the rationale in the first half of the sentence, but I don´t see how the second part follows, other than you simply feel this should be so.
I don´t know how to discuss this. I guess all I can do is is respond in a likewise undiscussable manner: "I feel the death penalty doesn´t fit any crime", and that would be that.


Such quantifiable criteria is actually codified where the death penalty exists.
Sure: Where the death penalty is accepted, there are criteria codified. But that doesn´t make an argument why the death penalty is acceptable.
Where cutting off limps, torture, abuse exist as punishments, the criteria for their use are also codified. I don´t see how this makes a case that these punishments are acceptable, in the first place. A completely different question.
The forfieture of ones own life under theses very rare circumstances still does not amount to a response as great as the crime committed, so trying for such clearly is not the goal.
Why not? And what is the goal?

Suppose a person rapes and murders 4 children in a particular community. Should that person get the same life in prison as the man who only rapes 2 children and does not murder them?
I don´t know. I guess my understanding of punishment doesn´t circle around the idea of retribution, but rather the protection of society - with the information given I feel unable to determine which of the persons poses a greater danger.

Can we understand why one crime is greater than the other, so why is it so difficult to think the punishment for one should be greater than the other?
I don´t find that difficult to understand (even though I do not necessarily agree - but that´s for another discussion). What I don´t understand is how this makes a case for the death penalty. States who don´t have the death penalty also hold and act upon the rationale of progressive punishment quite fine. They just have a narrower catalogue of punishments, just like a state that has the death penalty for the greatest punishment has a narrower catalogue of punishments than a state that has rape+torture+death for the greatest punishment.

(On a sidenote, I am wondering about the example you have given: Do you think that the first person (2 rape victims without murder) should not get the death penalty, but the latter (4 victims, including murder) should? Since you brought it up to explain the idea of progressive punishment:
If you think so - how would you punish a person who has raped, mutilated, tortured plus murdered, say, 8 children?
If you don´t think so, how is that an example for the death penalty helping or even being necessary for progressive punishment?

It appears to me that - death penalty or not - there is always a "greatest punishment", and once the criteria for applying it are determined, there is no progressive punishment possible beyond this threshold.

Death penalty is referred to as the ultimate punishment because there is nothing higher.
I don´t know about you, but personally, I can conceive of way higher punishments. Six years of daily rape and torture before you get slowly ripped in pieces until you finally die, for example.
Thus, once you hit a certain level, the ultimate punishment is all that's left.
That makes sense once we have accepted the death penalty as an acceptable option. But it does not answer the question why we should accept the death penalty, in the first place, and it doesn´t answer the question why stop there.
In nations where there is no death penalty, the same is true: Once you hit a certain level, the ultimate punishment (as codified by the laws) is all that´s left.
 
Upvote 0

tcampen

Veteran
Jul 14, 2003
2,704
151
✟18,632.00
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Yes, I do understand the idea of a progressive catalogue of punishments in relation to the severity of crimes.
I do not understand how that makes an argument for a particular form of punishment being acceptable (and this was your original argument: the punishment must fit the crime, therefore the death penalty is acceptable).
Suppose a man is upset that his wife is cheating on him. He gets a gun and shoots her as she returns home from work. Suppose we know it's a one time thing, and it will never happen again, so isolating the man for the community's protection is not an issue. Should we just issue the man a fine and be done with it? Or should there be a consequence to his actions? Prison? For how long? And Why?

The point is that graduated sentences are based on a building continuum of responses. Fines for speeding, a few days in jail for a second petty theft, a few years in prison for a residential burglary of an occupied dwelling, a few more years for armed robbery, etc. We get to a point where the Constitution allows for the death penalty for certain qualifying offenses. There are a whole list of crimes that get prison without possibility of parole. But what do you do when you go several notches higher on the crime scale, like multiple murders, or torture and rape before a brutal murder. There are time when the ultimate punishment fits the crime. I understand some have the postion that life without parole should be the ultimate punishment, but I think the loss of liberty alone does not always address the gravity of the crime.

I don´t know about you, but personally, I can conceive of way higher punishments. Six years of daily rape and torture before you get slowly ripped in pieces until you finally die, for example.
The U.S. Constitution won't allow for such, although I do appreciate your creativity.

That makes sense once we have accepted the death penalty as an acceptable option. But it does not answer the question why we should accept the death penalty, in the first place, and it doesn´t answer the question why stop there.
Why should we accept imprisonment of a single day for a terrible crime even when we're convinced the perpetrator will not reoffend? Is there such thing as accountability?

In nations where there is no death penalty, the same is true: Once you hit a certain level, the ultimate punishment (as codified by the laws) is all that´s left.
That's fine, and I respect that. I'm not saying I'm some fan of the death penalty. I'm just saying that there are certain crimes where I am not offended by it as a just punishment. Not to say "eye for an eye", but why would life in prison be a just response for a serial killer with a dozen victims?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
tcampen,
in order to prevent getting lost in irrelevant tangents, I will try to summarize what I have been and am discussing at this point (and what I haven´t and am not discussing).

I think the OP gave a pretty good list of arguments pro and contra death penalty (some better, some worse, but oh well).

You entered the thread saying:
I think there is another argument for the death penalty not listed in the OP:
So I was expecting an argument for the death penalty.

You went on explaining:

There are some offenses so great that the the ultimate punishment of death is justified.

This goes from the position that the punishment should fit the crime, and that some crimes are so great that the only just punishment for the offender is to give up his life.

When the whole principle of justice is that the punishment fit the crime, I am not offended by the notion that a man who brutally rapes and tortures a child for several days before panfully murdering her is deserving of the death penalty - in principle.

My objection was not directed at the idea that a gradation in punishment is a good idea, nor that therefore logically there has to be a highest punishment, but specifically at non-sequitur that therefore the death penalty must be the highest punishment. It simply doesn´t follow. With the same structure of the argument one could as well argue for any other punishment - out of the conceivable range of punishments - as the highest acceptable punishment.

Now, in your defense I have to admit that the keyterm in your argument was "I am not offended" - so formally it isn´t even an argument but merely a description of your feelings. (Not that I think your feelings don´t count or something, but they aren´t actually an argument because they don´t allow for a discussion).
Thus, the only appropriate response would probably have been to also describe my personal feelings, saying "but I am offended by this idea", agree to disagree and call it quits.


Suppose a man is upset that his wife is cheating on him. He gets a gun and shoots her as she returns home from work. Suppose we know it's a one time thing, and it will never happen again, so isolating the man for the community's protection is not an issue. Should we just issue the man a fine and be done with it? Or should there be a consequence to his actions? Prison? For how long? And Why?
These questions would make for a pretty interesting discussion, and I would be glad to discuss them with you in another thread (I am going on a one week vacation tonight, though). However, I don´t think that (no matter what my answers would be) they will help this discussion getting back on track. Au contraire.
If you think that a particular answer to your question helps to establish the death penalty (of all conceivable punishments) as the highest acceptable, feel free to hypothetically give this answer on my behalf and then make your point.

The point is that graduated sentences are based on a building continuum of responses. Fines for speeding, a few days in jail for a second petty theft, a few years in prison for a residential burglary of an occupied dwelling, a few more years for armed robbery, etc. We get to a point where the Constitution allows for the death penalty for certain qualifying offenses. There are a whole list of crimes that get prison without possibility of parole. But what do you do when you go several notches higher on the crime scale, like multiple murders, or torture and rape before a brutal murder. There are time when the ultimate punishment fits the crime.
Again: the reasonability gradation of punishment hasn´t and isn´t disputed.
The question is: "Why should the death penalty (of all conceivable punishments) be accepted as the ultimate punishment?", and all I can see you bringing up in support are statements that come down to "Because I feel it should".
I understand some have the postion that life without parole should be the ultimate punishment, but I think the loss of liberty alone does not always address the gravity of the crime.
Interestingly at this point you restate the thread question and simply state your opinion. How does this allow for a discussion?
That was my very point of criticism: While the OP listed discussable logical arguments, your additional argument went back to "This is how I feel." without even trying to rationalize your feelings.



The U.S. Constitution won't allow for such,
I think there is not much discussion about what the status quo is in the United States of America. Then again, this is neither the thread question nor a relevant point for the question we are discussing.

although I do appreciate your creativity.
Well, a crucial point in your argument was that the death penalty should be applied because it´s the highest punishment conceivable - thus I think investigating whether it is really the highest punishment conceivable is in order.
I don´t know why that earns me a sloppy reference to my creativity, as opposed to a serious discussion.


Why should we accept imprisonment of a single day for a terrible crime even when we're convinced the perpetrator will not reoffend?
Very interesting question, and I would love to hear your argument why we should. However, I fail to see how it makes a case for the death penalty as the highest acceptable punishment of all conceivable punishments.

Is there such thing as accountability?
I don´t think there is such a thing as accountability. I think there is a concept of holding people accountable, and that´s by and large a synonym for sentence/fine/punishment. Since the idea of punishment in general has not been disputed so far (although that would make for an interesting discussion, as well), the concept of holding people accountable hasn´t either.


That's fine, and I respect that. I'm not saying I'm some fan of the death penalty. I'm just saying that there are certain crimes where I am not offended by it as a just punishment.
I respect that as your personal feeling, but beyond that I don´t know how to discuss your feelings.

Not to say "eye for an eye", but why would life in prison be a just response for a serial killer with a dozen victims?
The question "What do we mean when saying 'justice'?" is also a very interesting one, and it would make for an interesting thread. In fact, I think I made such a thread some while ago.
 
Upvote 0

tcampen

Veteran
Jul 14, 2003
2,704
151
✟18,632.00
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
My objection was not directed at the idea that a gradation in punishment is a good idea, nor that therefore logically there has to be a highest punishment, but specifically at non-sequitur that therefore the death penalty must be the highest punishment. It simply doesn´t follow. With the same structure of the argument one could as well argue for any other punishment - out of the conceivable range of punishments - as the highest acceptable punishment.
Per the U.S. Constitution, the death penalty is the highest form of punishment. This is simply the state of affairs; I didn't make it up.

Again: the reasonability gradation of punishment hasn´t and isn´t disputed.
The question is: "Why should the death penalty (of all conceivable punishments) be accepted as the ultimate punishment?", and all I can see you bringing up in support are statements that come down to "Because I feel it should".
I think based on your criteria one could ask whether accountability should be part of the criminal justice system at all. Are you suggesting the response to crimes should be based only on rehabilitation and the protection of the community? That accountability is not a factor? What punishment is appropriate for the worst crimes? Do you even believe in punishment at all?

The very notion of Justice is an appropriate punishment per the crime. But there are limits. Right now, the limit is death. We don't torture, we don't starve people, we don't subject people to endless hours of John Tesh. But the law does allow for the loss of liberty and the loss of life with due process. Do you oppose also oppose the loss of liberty for the sake of punishment alone? Why? If a certain level of crime warrants the loss of liberty for the rest of one's life, why shouldn't a much worse crime warrant the loss of one's life itself?

This is where the notion of graduated levels of punishment come in.

I think there is not much discussion about what the status quo is in the United States of America. Then again, this is neither the thread question nor a relevant point for the question we are discussing.
It's absolutely relevant in considering what is available in reality, not hypothetically.

Well, a crucial point in your argument was that the death penalty should be applied because it´s the highest punishment conceivable - thus I think investigating whether it is really the highest punishment conceivable is in order.
By law it is the highest form available. What's the point of delving into other concepts that are not even available?

However, I fail to see how it makes a case for the death penalty as the highest acceptable punishment of all conceivable punishments.
I don't think I said "highest acceptable punishment of all conceivable punishments". But to clarify, I'm sticking to reality - those that are available by law in the U.S.

I don´t think there is such a thing as accountability. I think there is a concept of holding people accountable, and that´s by and large a synonym for sentence/fine/punishment. Since the idea of punishment in general has not been disputed so far (although that would make for an interesting discussion, as well), the concept of holding people accountable hasn´t either.
Real justice demands accountability (within the confines of the law) that matches the conduct. If a person intentionally murders a family of 5 people, including 3 young children, why would life imprison necessarily equate with justice and accountability? Again, the idea of accountability does not seem to have played a part in this thread, so I guess I'll put it back on you....Since the death penalty is permitted by law, what about it do you think does not equate with accountability for certain crimes?
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
I think at this point we can cut the discussion pretty short:
By law it is the highest form available. What's the point of delving into other concepts that are not even available?
Where I live the constitution excludes the death penalty from the catalogue of available punishments.
So, if adapting your line of reasoning, there is no point for me to delve into the concept "death penalty" that is not even available. That gives me a pretty convenient position in this discussion. Thanks! :)
 
Upvote 0