Death penalty - right or wrong

[cantata]

Ok, fair point about actively killing compared to not saving.

But then, the question at hand is not one of whether murder convicts should be actively killed or not actively killed. It's one of whether they should be actively killed or actively suffer for life in prison.

If you prefer, I'll revise the final line of #56 to: I wonder how many innocent people who are rotting in jail (actively made to suffer, if you will) wouldn't be there if the money saved by executing people would be used to improve the judicial process.

How could executing more people free up more cash when, by your own admission, the appeals process (quite rightly, in my opinion) is very expensive? What you seem to be suggesting is that we spend more on making sure innocent people don't get convicted, but kill more of them once we're sure. You'd have to kill an awful lot of them to make up the deficit, so what crimes are you going to newly designate as 'worthy' of death (whatever that means)?

And frankly, wouldn't it be better to have fewer people 'rotting' in jail in the first place by attempting to rehabilitate them, getting them working on community projects, &c.?

 

[Futuwwa]

Ok, I see how my post might have seemed contradictory. I did not suggest that (life sentence + no appeals process) be changed for (death sentence + appeals process), but rather (life) -> (death) + use the saved funds to improve the appeals processes of everyone.

You would not necessarily have to designate anything new as a crime "worthy of death" than those crimes which already are laden with life sentences (which would be very little, if anything, except murder). Those also happens to be the ones for which incarceration is most expensive, as the prisons these guys are sent to tend to be of the maximum security type.

My reasoning is based on the assumption that being innocently sentenced to life in prison is as undesirable as being innocently sentenced to death. If both are equally awful, there would be nothing wrong with moving people from life imprisonment to execution.

The funds saved by executing the "awful lot" of people (whose lives still would have been ruined by a life sentence) would even reduce their numbers, as some of the innocents among them would be spared such a fate.

 

[cantata]

Ok, I see how my post might have seemed contradictory. I did not suggest that (life sentence + no appeals process) be changed for (death sentence + appeals process), but rather (life) -> (death) + use the saved funds to improve the appeals processes of everyone.

You would not necessarily have to designate anything new as a crime "worthy of death" than those crimes which already are laden with life sentences (which would be very little, if anything, except murder). Those also happens to be the ones for which incarceration is most expensive, as the prisons these guys are sent to tend to be of the maximum security type.

My reasoning is based on the assumption that being innocently sentenced to life in prison is as undesirable as being innocently sentenced to death. If both are equally awful, there would be nothing wrong with moving people from life imprisonment to execution.

The funds saved by executing the "awful lot" of people (whose lives still would have been ruined by a life sentence) would even reduce their numbers, as some of the innocents among them would be spared such a fate.

As you said before, though, the major problem with executing people is that it's irreversible. There are still miscarriages of justice, despite all the checks that are done, and they really make it very much not okay to kill people, in my opinion.

Also, I think killing people is worse than locking them up, simply because threatening someone with a premature death from which they have no hope of escaping is a form of torture, in my opinion, and is wholly unnecessary. Incarceration may not be particularly humane - I would prefer an alternative wherever possible - but it is more humane than executing people. (The justice system clearly believes that killing people is worse than incarcerating them, because it does indeed apply this rigorous system of appeals to death sentences where it does not to life sentences.)

Are numbers more important than individuals' suffering? I don't think so. I think the claim of the worst-off person is the most important for us to review. I think the worst-off person is the innocent person condemned to death. And I think that the possibility of them being condemned to death is unacceptable.

 

[NailsII]

„Fitting the crime“ in which way? In that it harms the harming person as badly as he harmed others? Why would we want to do that? Which purpose would that serve?
I am under the impression that our intended goal is to remove harmful behaviour, and not add harm upon harm.

Punishments should fit the crime, which is why we have sliding scales for sentances, murder is deemed worse than theft and so length of jail term is proportional.
It is annoying however, when a pensioner who doesn't pay their council tax gets a longer custodial sentance than someone who downloads child porn.
Even prison is harm, whichever way you look at it (or at least it bloody well should be).

I don´t seem to get the „proportional“ thing. If a thief takes someone´s property returning the property (and possibly paying for the temporal loss) would be proportional. Compensation.
Unfortunately you can´t compensate for taking a life, so this part is obsolete.
So what the heck does „fitting the crime“ mean theoretically and practically when it comes to violence crimes that you can´t compensate for?

[BIBLE]Exodus 21:24[/BIBLE]
Is this really the way we want justice to be?
As for your last point, isn't that the whole point of this thread?
As I have already said, I am a fence-sitter on this issue and I would appreciate a wider range of experiences and knowledge to help me arrive at a judgement.

No. We want to protect ourselves, and we feel we need to incarcerate them in lack of a more reasonable and compassionate alternative.
As I have said before, I think it would be a good idea to determine what exactly you want to discuss. When I spoke about your average murderer, you responded by pointing to sociopaths. When I answered in regards to sociopath, you answered „but not necessarily all murderers“. I´m confused.

Not all sociopaths are murdered, that was my point. Potential, statistically more likely yes, but not all bad people.
What I want to discuss?
It is a forum, I am happy to participate wherever this thread leads, I do not aim to direct it, only to enjoy it.

I´m not sure I agree with that. For the time being I have problems understanding what that is supposed to mean, in the first place.
Furthermore I sense (correct me if I am wrong) that you use this unspecific term in order to introduce revenge for a factor. I don´t agree with that.

but should the feelings of the victims and their families not have a say?

Yes, agreed. The question is: What is the best method for doing this, and which basic principles of a humane society are we willing to sacrifice for the goal of protecting ourselves from these persons.

Whilst still remaining humane - that s the key.

If this is so, I currently don´t see any way around locking them up for the rest of their lives.

And throw away the key.

I don´t think being denied freedom, and, yes, the „soft option“ argument seems to be based on nothing but the idea of retribution – harming the person for harm´s sake.
My approach doesn´t circle around the idea of judging crimes, but around the idea of protecting ourselves with causing as little harm as possible. This indeed requires individual consideration of every single case, but I don´t see any case in which the death penalty is required for that.

Thank you for you input. So, if the death penalty is out, is there anything else left other than life imprisonment?

Then there is quite obviously something wrong with military training (in general or in the way it is performed with these results). Let´s fix that instead of harming its victims even more.

Unfortunately not, military training has evolved to produce cold-blooded killers. without that, warfare would be pretty tame, don't ya think?

I personally would expect much good coming from getting rid of the idea of coercing and conditioning humans into the desired behaviour. Education.
I also would expect great progress coming from a society that doesn´t violate its own principles. The acceptance of institutionalized premaditated killing (and besides the death penalty I mean war here in particular) is not reconcilable with the desire to establish the idea that human life is the highest good.
Trying to teach people to not act upon their negative emotions and instincts, whilst officially establishing negative emotions and instincts as one of the parameters for justice can´t come across as a credible approach.

Emphasis mine.
I was hoping someone would bring this up, because this woul dhae been my next point.

A permanent solution? To the fact that some people kill others? No, I am afraid I don´t have such. Since the death penalty is demonstrably not such a solution either I don´t see that as a problem of the position that opposes the death penalty.

Whilst being deliberately misleading with my statement, I was actually refering to fixing society's ills permanantly by educating the population in order to reduce prison size and increase social cohesion.
Bad parents can bring up good kids yes, but good parents rarely raise bad kids. By making more good parents, we should (in theory) reduce the problem at grass roots level.

 

[NailsII]

What does this mean? Are you talking about morality here, or deterrence?

I don;t believe that deterence is effective, otherwise the murder rate would be far lower instates with the daeth penalty, which it clealry isn't

Please do not muddy the waters. Not all paedophiles are child sex offenders. Not all child sex offenders are paedophiles. You are talking here about child sex offenders, not paedophiles.

Child rapists, to be more specific. Vile, horrific people and a quick death is far too good for them.
Sorry to be so blunt, but in the last year there have been two high profile cases of such monsters living within half a mile form my house, which is close to two primary schools. And being a parent I am naturally concerned.

I don't see how the fact that they are likely to re-offend implies that we should kill them. At most, we should incarcerate them for life.

A logical conclusion and I concur - in principle, at least.

The public's need or otherwise for 'justice' is irrelevant. It is not the government's business to administer justice in the moral sense. Prison needs only to be unpleasant enough to put people off committing crimes.

But if prison is not unpleasant enough?
I believe we as the law-abiding public have a right to see justice being done, whether that means death sentances or not.

I'm not sure what the merits of any crime might be, but you are right that there is no single solution - we should not lock up all criminals, petty or otherwise, for the rest of their lives. Fines, community service, and different terms in prison, are currently what the state offers. Personally I think that more should be done to rehabilitate offenders, but that is beside the point.

Agreed.

That's because military training and other situations which involve repeated and vigorous invocations of authority tend to cause people to slip into what is sometimes called the agentic state. When in this state, people do not feel that they are responsible for their actions, but that they are agents of authority comparable to limbs of someone's body. The famous Milgram experiment demonstrated very clearly the way in which people can shed their moral inhibitions, often experiencing horrific internal conflict, when they are subject to the orders of someone who is perceived to be a powerful authority. I think there is something quite worrying about producing these states in people, but I don't really see your point. All that can be said is that people who are in the agentic state do seem to have reduced psychological responsibility for their actions.

Were concentration camp guards evil people? No, they were ordinary men who were just following orders.

I am aware of the Milgram experiments, but I was referring to the conditioned effect of turning 'normal' people into sociopathic killers (or good soldiers, which ever way you want to look at it). Would the converse not also be possible?
Military training is not all about obedience, but about being able to kill with little or no remorse and cetainly no hesitation under certain circumstances.

Even simpler solution: stop locking people up for possession of drugs and other pointless crimes.

I couldn't disagree more.
Most of the ills I see in society today stem directly from the use of drugs, including excessive alcohol use (leading to lack of judgement and violence) or the innocent dope-smoker who gets far too stoned to give a [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] what their kids are doing.
Possesion and use of illegal drugs is not a victimless or petty crime.

We should kill people because we're short of cash? What sort of a vile argument is that?

When you put it like that, it does seem rather barbaric.
But why should public money be used to house the dregs of society in comparitive luxury (gyms, TVs, Playstaions etc) when innocent people have to suffer because healthcare is too expensive etc.

 

[quatona]

Punishments should fit the crime, which is why we have sliding scales for sentances, murder is deemed worse than theft and so length of jail term is proportional.

I personally can´t seem to make sense of that concept. It seems to apply criteria and purposes that I don´t want to pursue when dealing with societally inacceptable behaviour.
All I want is reasonable protection (I have described what I mean by that more in detail in a previous post – so anticipating your agreement I will simply say „reasonable protection“ for simplicity´s sake, ok?). That´s why the idea of „fitting the crime“ doesn´t seem to play any part in my approach.

It is annoying however, when a pensioner who doesn't pay their council tax gets a longer custodial sentance than someone who downloads child porn.

Well, apparently your approach comes to its limits when people disagree which of two crimes is more severe.

Even prison is harm, whichever way you look at it

Yes, I have said so before. I regret that for the life of me I can´t think of a more humane solution that provides reasonable protection from violence crimes of notoriously re-offending persons.

(or at least it bloody well should be).

Why? Serving which purpose?

Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, fracture for fracture.
Is this really the way we want justice to be?

Well, not me. That´s my main point. I don´t want institutionalized retribution.
I am not sure about you, though (and despite my repeated question you don´t seem to be interested in clarifying). Sentences like „Prison is harm[....] or at least it bloody well should be“ don´t seem to make much sense to me outside the idea of retribution.

As for your last point, isn't that the whole point of this thread?

Not really. Whilst for you „fitting the crime“ is the approach of choice and you just seem to ask for the amount of measuring, I don´t understand the entire concept and its purpose, in the first place, and am looking for an explanation that helps me make sense of it.

As I have already said, I am a fence-sitter on this issue and I would appreciate a wider range of experiences and knowledge to help me arrive at a judgement.

I´m afraid I can´t offer knowledge or experience. I can just offer my opinion and my attempt to help sorting things that appear to be not yet thought to the end.
That´s why my main question is for the intended purpose. Abstract purposes like „fitting the crime“ or „justice“ don´t do it for me.
I can offer an approach that´s assembled about the idea of „reasonable protection“, and this approach doesn´t require such concepts.

What I want to discuss?
It is a forum, I am happy to participate wherever this thread leads, I do not aim to direct it, only to enjoy it.

Well, I guess I just felt stuck, because whenever I started discussing one of two distinct topics that in my opinion require a different discussion, you were bringing up the other. I can be very systematic. No biggie.

but should the feelings of the victims and their families not have a say?

I don´t even think that immediate negative emotions are good advice givers for the individual person. Even less I think they are good advice givers when it comes to jurisdiction. Actually, I have always understood laws and rules and such as a means to prevent negative emotions of individuals from being acted upon, and replace them by reason.

Whilst still remaining humane - that s the key.

Yup. As humane as possible within the attempt to provide reasonable protection. As we have already agreed we can´t think of a completely humane means of doing that.

nthrow away the key.

If this remark is of importance, would you care to reword it for me in a way that is more clearly communicating the point?

Thank you for you input. So, if the death penalty is out, is there anything else left other than life imprisonment?

Life imprisonment for those who can reasonably be predicted to be uncarable re-offenders, that is.
No, I am afraid I can´t think of a better solution. „Clockwork Orange“ comes to mind. I´m not sure what to think of such solutions.

Unfortunately not, military training has evolved to produce cold-blooded killers. without that, warfare would be pretty tame, don't ya think?

For me, warfare couldn´t be tame enough. In fact I would prefer it to disappear entirely.

Now, what you are describing is a society that welcomes and even conditions people into cold blooded killing and sociopathic behaviour when it suits its purposes. I wonder how anyone can be surprised that there are sociopaths. How can such a society credibly communicate that cold-blooded killing and sociopathic behaviour is inacceptable?
Something doesn´t add up there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by quatona
I personally would expect much good coming from getting rid of the idea of coercing and conditioning humans into the desired behaviour. Education.
I also would expect great progress coming from a society that doesn´t violate its own principles. The acceptance of institutionalized premaditated killing (and besides the death penalty I mean war here in particular) is not reconcilable with the desire to establish the idea that human life is the highest good.
Trying to teach people to not act upon their negative emotions and instincts, whilst officially establishing negative emotions and instincts as one of the parameters for justice can´t come across as a credible approach.

Emphasis mine.
I was hoping someone would bring this up, because this woul dhae been my next point.

Great. Crisis management seems to never gain satisfactory results, that´s why I feel we must look deeper and get closer to the causes.

Bad parents can bring up good kids yes, but good parents rarely raise bad kids. By making more good parents, we should (in theory) reduce the problem at grass roots level.

Well, if following this – a bit over-simplicistic, but useable imo – axiom bad parents once were bad kids raised by bad parents.
So this isn´t an easy task, either, and takes a long time and quite some paradigm shifts until it gains good results. However, I find such considerations way more worthwhile than considering the question how to harm persons.

 

[NailsII]

Firstly, punishment fitting the crime.
Severity of punishment needs to match (wherever possible) the the severity of the crime.
Hense a parking ticket costs a few pounds (or dollars) and a speeding ticket costs a lot more.
Seems wierd that parking illegally in a city costs mroe than a town though..... (sorry, just thinking out loud)
This does not necessarily mean equivelant retribution, as in eye for an eye etc.

Well, apparently your approach comes to its limits when people disagree which of two crimes is more severe.
I can offer an approach that´s assembled about the idea of „reasonable protection“, and this approach doesn´t require such concepts.

A valid point, and we would surely all disagree on what is more severe base dupon personal experience. But if the punishment does not fit the crime, then there is no deterent which is never a good thing.

I don´t even think that immediate negative emotions are good advice givers for the individual person. Even less I think they are good advice givers when it comes to jurisdiction. Actually, I have always understood laws and rules and such as a means to prevent negative emotions of individuals from being acted upon, and replace them by reason.

Once the verdict is reached, I see no reason why such emotional blackmail should not be used to encourage a judge to pass the maximum sentance....
Not that the life of a man with no family is worth less than one with kids, but I think you get my point.

Yup. As humane as possible within the attempt to provide reasonable protection. As we have already agreed we can´t think of a completely humane means of doing that.

But we know of plenty of inhumane ones - doesn't that say a lot about our species?
Just think, if we were orangutangs imprisonment might well involve being in big groups of people instead of solitary confinement.....

If this remark is of importance, would you care to reword it for me in a way that is more clearly communicating the point?

Remove all possibility that such a person could ever be released.

Life imprisonment for those who can reasonably be predicted to be uncarable re-offenders, that is.
No, I am afraid I can´t think of a better solution. „Clockwork Orange“ comes to mind. I´m not sure what to think of such solutions.

Was there something in the film (I'm not much of a Kubric fan) or are you advocating forced viewing?

Great. Crisis management seems to never gain satisfactory results, that´s why I feel we must look deeper and get closer to the causes.

Agreed - instead of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Well, if following this – a bit over-simplicistic, but useable imo – axiom bad parents once were bad kids raised by bad parents.
So this isn´t an easy task, either, and takes a long time and quite some paradigm shifts until it gains good results. However, I find such considerations way more worthwhile than considering the question how to harm persons.

Makes you think a little though.
how would this extrapolate in temrs of changing birth rates?
ie, when the birth rates rise, more bad kids are raised.
When they fall, shouldn't their be fewer?
Again, simplistic but that's not what we see today.
I see falling birth rates and increased social unrest, falling levels of respect (even for oneself) and society is suffering as a whole.

Anyway, it's way too late here, I need some beauty sleep.

 

[cantata]

I don;t believe that deterence is effective, otherwise the murder rate would be far lower instates with the daeth penalty, which it clealry isn't

Okay, so I have to conclude that you are advocating the death penalty for solely retributive purposes. I find that abhorrent. As I have repeated over and over again, I (and I think you also, if you think about it) do not want to live somewhere where punishments are handed out in order to satisfy someone or other's desire for retribution.

Child rapists, to be more specific. Vile, horrific people and a quick death is far too good for them.
Sorry to be so blunt, but in the last year there have been two high profile cases of such monsters living within half a mile form my house, which is close to two primary schools. And being a parent I am naturally concerned.

Right, all I wanted to ensure is that the word 'paedophile' isn't used when 'child sex offender' or 'child rapist' is what is meant. There are many paedophiles - that is, those who are unfortunate enough to be sexually attracted to children - who would never dream of actually abusing any child.

I am not sure that 'a quick death is far too good' for anyone. That is precisely the sort of reactionary response that absolutely needs to be avoided dispassionately by those handing out the sentences. And besides, a quick death would be being unexpectedly shot in the back of the head while you were making your lunch. Anyone who thinks that the death penalty constitutes a quick death for any prisoner is very wrong; it is a slow and agonising death which starts at the moment of sentencing and goes on until the last paroxysms.

But if prison is not unpleasant enough?

Well, it's my opinion that making it more so won't make it more of a deterrent, and if it isn't more of a deterrent there is no reason to do so.

I believe we as the law-abiding public have a right to see justice being done, whether that means death sentances or not.

I wholly disagree with you. Criminals, however heinous their crimes, do not exist to be abused in order to pander to the general public's frequently misguided and reactionary blood-lust.

I am aware of the Milgram experiments, but I was referring to the conditioned effect of turning 'normal' people into sociopathic killers (or good soldiers, which ever way you want to look at it). Would the converse not also be possible?
Military training is not all about obedience, but about being able to kill with little or no remorse and cetainly no hesitation under certain circumstances.

I'm not at all sure what your point is. The fact that it is possible to train people to behave in psychopathic ways does not entail that it is possible to train them not to.

I couldn't disagree more.
Most of the ills I see in society today stem directly from the use of drugs, including excessive alcohol use (leading to lack of judgement and violence)

Which would be dealt with if we instilled a more positive and adult attitude towards alcohol. Prohibition would only increase the problem.

You'll notice that in France, where many children drink watered down wine from a young age, there is no binge drinking culture. Why? Because drinking alcohol in France isn't seen as naughty or rebellious or something that's meant for the grown-ups. We need to foster a similar attitude in this country, and until we do so we will continue to see these problems and they will continue to get worse.

or the innocent dope-smoker who gets far too stoned to give a [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] what their kids are doing.

Do you have any statistics to suggest that many cannabis users have this attitude towards their children?

Possesion and use of illegal drugs is not a victimless or petty crime.

Well, yes, it is, if you use them responsibly (or at least, as responsibly as you can, given that they are illegal).

I know plenty of people who use cannabis responsibly.

When you put it like that, it does seem rather barbaric.
But why should public money be used to house the dregs of society in comparitive luxury (gyms, TVs, Playstaions etc)

What do you suggest? That they should be kept in ditches? They're human beings, not animals.

Personally I would prefer to see the money spent on TVs and Playstations, if indeed they have those things, spent on books, on teaching people a trade, and so on, but the money needs to be spent either way.

when innocent people have to suffer because healthcare is too expensive etc.

Healthcare is free in this country. That's the wonder of the NHS. Besides, funds aren't allocated by taking money out of one department and adding it to another.

 

[quatona]

Nails, here is a question that I would like you to answer because it would help preventing us from talking past each other:
Do you think that retribution should in any way be a motive or factor in dealing with criminality?
If yes, this is a point we disagree upon. We either discuss this very point, or we agree to disagree and acknowledge that we have no common ground for further discussions.
If no, let´s try to make sure we don´t let it slip in through the back door when discussing.

Firstly, punishment fitting the crime.
Severity of punishment needs to match (wherever possible) the the severity of the crime.
Hense a parking ticket costs a few pounds (or dollars) and a speeding ticket costs a lot more.
Seems wierd that parking illegally in a city costs mroe than a town though..... (sorry, just thinking out loud).

Well, instead of telling me why you adhere to the maxime „the punishment must fit the crime“, you merely point me to cases where it seems to be the applied.
Again: What is the idea behind „the punishment should fit the crime“? What do you hope to gain from it?

This does not necessarily mean equivelant retribution, as in eye for an eye etc.

I want retribution to be entirely taken out of the equation. It is an irrational concept.
If we can´t agree on that, there is little common ground for comparing our approaches in terms of effectivity.

To be honest, I can´t help feeling that you are trying to rationalize your desire for retribution.
You need to understand that retribution has no place in my approach. I understand your feelings and emotions (and oftentimes I find myself having similar emotions), but they I don´t want them to become a factor in our societal response.

A valid point, and we would surely all disagree on what is more severe base dupon personal experience. But if the punishment does not fit the crime, then there is no deterent which is never a good thing.

Couple of things:
1. you bring up „deterrent“ here, whilst actually you have already conceded that neither of the options available with the crimes in question is an effective means of deterrence. So quite apparently, whilst adjusting the costs of a ticket to the severity of the violation may work as an appropriate deterrent, the entire approach is completely baseless when it comes to the sort of crimes we are talking about.
Your ordinary murderer who kills his mother-in-law out of spontaneous rage does not think of the punishment, anyways. Else he wouldn´t do it, in the first place. He is out of his mind.
Neither is a sociopath able to buy into such considerations.
Neither is a sick compulsive murderer or child-abuser.
If thinking of professional criminals like violent bank-robbers, I think it is safe to assume that they tend to disregard the possibility that they will be caught and punished rather than rationally calculating the risk. I have problems imagining a professional criminal abstaining from a certain crime because it will earn him 10 instead 5 years of prison. If 5 years of prison aren´t a deterrent, 10 years aren´t either, and even less double the deterrent.
So the entire maxime of „fitting the crime“ (and it´s purpose of deterrence) goes completely beyond the reality of the things we are discussing.
2. I remember we agreed that „conditioning“ is not our preferred method of regulating human interaction. „Deterrence“, however, is the epitome of „conditioning“. Just saying.

Once the verdict is reached, I see no reason why such emotional blackmail should not be used to encourage a judge to pass the maximum sentance....

I´m sorry, but I don´t seem to understand what you are saying here.
In any case, I think emotional blackmail is not a valid means in jurisdiction.

Not that the life of a man with no family is worth less than one with kids, but I think you get my point.

No, I don´t get your point at all. Please expand on it.

But we know of plenty of inhumane ones - doesn't that say a lot about our species?

No, I don´t think so. It says something about the conditions of our existence that unfortunately and inevadably comes with dilemmas.

Just think, if we were orangutangs imprisonment might well involve being in big groups of people instead of solitary confinement.....

And if we were stones, we wouldn´t have to engage in any considerations at all.

Remove all possibility that such a person could ever be released.

This is practically impossible. We are, however, used to being content with solutions that provide reasonable security without being entirely perfect in most every realm of life. I think that´s how far it gets, and that´s ok. If we want 100% security of violence crimes, we would have to eradicate humankind.

Was there something in the film (I'm not much of a Kubric fan) or are you advocating forced viewing?

It´s been a while since I watched it. So I am not sure how I´d think about it today. I found it interesting in that it shed light on quite some aspects at the dilemma we are talking about.
Basically it tells the story of a sociopath who – as an alternative to lifelong prison – takes part in an experiment. He is given drugs that make him abhorr everything he encounters (with this effect being lasting beyond the immediate influence of the drugs) and shown violence pictures. A form of re-programming through drugs, if you will.

Makes you think a little though.
how would this extrapolate in temrs of changing birth rates?
ie, when the birth rates rise, more bad kids are raised.
When they fall, shouldn't their be fewer?

I see falling birth rates and increased social unrest, falling levels of respect (even for oneself) and society is suffering as a whole.

[FONT=&quot]I think that such conclusions based on the experience during half the lifespan of a human tend to be rashed.
Let´s be careful and not fall into the „things used to be better“ routine that apparently has accompanied the ageing process of humans since humanity came into existence, or at least has left records of its thinking. [/FONT]

 

[NailsII]

Okay, so I have to conclude that you are advocating the death penalty for solely retributive purposes. I find that abhorrent. As I have repeated over and over again, I (and I think you also, if you think about it) do not want to live somewhere where punishments are handed out in order to satisfy someone or other's desire for retribution.

Partly for retribution i suppose, but I think it is a minor point. But if the death penalty is not an effective dterent, does it serve any other purpose? If that is the case, then it probably is immoral.

Right, all I wanted to ensure is that the word 'paedophile' isn't used when 'child sex offender' or 'child rapist' is what is meant. There are many paedophiles - that is, those who are unfortunate enough to be sexually attracted to children - who would never dream of actually abusing any child.

A valid point, I am sorry I was not clear enough on this attitude.
My worry with those who view pornographic images of children are using a 'market' which is catered for by abusing children. But I am not tarring all with this brush, I am sure there are many who have sufficient control to live a 'normal' life.

I am not sure that 'a quick death is far too good' for anyone. That is precisely the sort of reactionary response that absolutely needs to be avoided dispassionately by those handing out the sentences. And besides, a quick death would be being unexpectedly shot in the back of the head while you were making your lunch. Anyone who thinks that the death penalty constitutes a quick death for any prisoner is very wrong; it is a slow and agonising death which starts at the moment of sentencing and goes on until the last paroxysms.

But is that more punishing than spending the rest of your natural life behind bars, never to experience freedom again?

Well, it's my opinion that making it more so won't make it more of a deterrent, and if it isn't more of a deterrent there is no reason to do so.

A sound argument.

I wholly disagree with you. Criminals, however heinous their crimes, do not exist to be abused in order to pander to the general public's frequently misguided and reactionary blood-lust.

Again, a logical conclusion.
The weakness of allowing relatives of victims to testify to their loss is that it makes someone from a big family a bigger loss than someone without a family, and so a harsher sentance may be given, which isn't logical.

I'm not at all sure what your point is. The fact that it is possible to train people to behave in psychopathic ways does not entail that it is possible to train them not to.

But it would be nice.
Treatment of offenders would be better than pure incarceration?

Which would be dealt with if we instilled a more positive and adult attitude towards alcohol. Prohibition would only increase the problem.

I totally agree with this.

You'll notice that in France, where many children drink watered down wine from a young age, there is no binge drinking culture. Why? Because drinking alcohol in France isn't seen as naughty or rebellious or something that's meant for the grown-ups. We need to foster a similar attitude in this country, and until we do so we will continue to see these problems and they will continue to get worse.

Again, I agree.

Do you have any statistics to suggest that many cannabis users have this attitude towards their children?

No, only personal experience.
But again, I cannot even infer that canabis use is corelated with poor parenting, because their are cases which do not conform.
I suppose i carry a pre-conceived bias because I don't smoke dope.

Well, yes, it is, if you use them responsibly (or at least, as responsibly as you can, given that they are illegal)..

I know plenty of people who use cannabis responsibly.

But a crime is a crime, and society as a whole cannot benefit surely by having large numbers doped up 24/7? Are you aware of the link with psychosis and long-term cannabis use?

What do you suggest? That they should be kept in ditches? They're human beings, not animals.

Maybe not ditches, but not in the lap of luxury either.

Personally I would prefer to see the money spent on TVs and Playstations, if indeed they have those things, spent on books, on teaching people a trade, and so on, but the money needs to be spent either way.

A work colleague of mine has a son in jail, for aggrivated assault. While serving his sentance, he has been re-trained in th ebuilding trade (plasterer) and has a fork-lift licence. All well and good, and worth it if he stays out of jail again.
But what about those of us who would love to re-train and don't end up in jail?

Healthcare is free in this country. That's the wonder of the NHS. Besides, funds aren't allocated by taking money out of one department and adding it to another.

But if less is spent on one area, there is more to spend on others.
Example, the government estimates that nearly £200 million a year is issued in benefits to people who don't live in this country (ie tax credits and child benefit to European families who have a working adult in the UK).
Do you think this money could be spent elsewhere?

 

[allhart]

To take notice of God word is to notice what it means to truly live. Take walk into Gods memory lane Genesis 9: 1-9

 

[cantata]

Partly for retribution i suppose, but I think it is a minor point. But if the death penalty is not an effective dterent, does it serve any other purpose? If that is the case, then it probably is immoral.

Well, that's exactly my point!

It's quite clear that the death penalty is not terribly effective as a deterrent as opposed to life sentences; so unless it has some retributive value (a phrase I consider an oxymoron when it comes to criminal justice), it is indeed immoral.

A valid point, I am sorry I was not clear enough on this attitude.

No problem, it's just a pet peeve of mine

My worry with those who view pornographic images of children are using a 'market' which is catered for by abusing children. But I am not tarring all with this brush, I am sure there are many who have sufficient control to live a 'normal' life.

I wholly agree with you, and I consider anyone who pays for child pornography worthy of prosecution for that very reason. However, as you say, there are of course paedophiles who neither fuel child pornography rings, nor abuse any children themselves.

But is that more punishing than spending the rest of your natural life behind bars, never to experience freedom again?

Well, I would regard the death penalty as cruel and unusual punishment.

We don't have a lot of choice but to lock certain people up for life. If they show no remorse and are unable to be 'made safe' for release, there's no other option that I can think of, sad though that is. I consider life imprisonment the lesser of the two evils, however.

Perhaps we should consider permitting life-with-no-parole prisoners to commit suicide in gaol, although I would imagine that those with no hope of being rehabilitated are the ones least likely to take up that offer.

A sound argument.

Thanks!

Again, a logical conclusion.
The weakness of allowing relatives of victims to testify to their loss is that it makes someone from a big family a bigger loss than someone without a family, and so a harsher sentance may be given, which isn't logical.

No, and nor is it fair.

But it would be nice.
Treatment of offenders would be better than pure incarceration?

I wholly agree, and I would like to see more done on that front. Because I believe incarceration should exist solely as a deterrent and as a safety measure, I have no interest in keeping anyone incarcerated longer than is necessary to put other potential offenders off and to ensure public safety. Rehabilitation is therefore an extremely attractive option.

I totally agree with this.

Again, I agree.

No, only personal experience.
But again, I cannot even infer that canabis use is corelated with poor parenting, because their are cases which do not conform.
I suppose i carry a pre-conceived bias because I don't smoke dope.

But a crime is a crime, and society as a whole cannot benefit surely by having large numbers doped up 24/7? Are you aware of the link with psychosis and long-term cannabis use?

Are large numbers doped up 24/7 in Holland? I don't think we can show it to be the case that the legalisation of cannabis would lead to everyone getting high all the time.

I am aware of the link between psychosis and long-term cannabis use, just as I am aware of the link between heart disease and long-term McDonald's use.

Maybe not ditches, but not in the lap of luxury either.

I think the fact that their freedom is so curtailed prevents their circumstances from being able to be considered 'the lap of luxury'.

It really depends what you regard as luxury, in any case. I would regard a typical prison cell as anything but luxurious. In any case, I think it is advisable for prisoners not to be bored or unduly miserable. The last think we want is to find that rape and assault are the only forms of entertainment.

A work colleague of mine has a son in jail, for aggrivated assault. While serving his sentance, he has been re-trained in th ebuilding trade (plasterer) and has a fork-lift licence. All well and good, and worth it if he stays out of jail again.
But what about those of us who would love to re-train and don't end up in jail?

I agree, that sucks.

I guess the solution is to get gaoled, right?

But if less is spent on one area, there is more to spend on others.
Example, the government estimates that nearly £200 million a year is issued in benefits to people who don't live in this country (ie tax credits and child benefit to European families who have a working adult in the UK).
Do you think this money could be spent elsewhere?

Of course it could. It could be spent on education or nuclear warheads.

I don't think spending less money on the prison system is going to help anyone much. If the population's more miserable, you'll need to spend more on psychiatrists and security anyway.

 

[Ramona]

Absolutely wrong. Do I think some people deserve to die for their crimes? Absolutely. However, the risk of executing an innocent man or woman is far too great a risk to take.

Additionally, people who call themselves "Pro-Life" for being anti-abortion but call for the execution of alleged felons aren't worthy of being called Pro-Life.

 

[NailsII]

Sorry for the late reply, my internet has been playing up since the weekend.....

Nails, here is a question that I would like you to answer because it would help preventing us from talking past each other:
Do you think that retribution should in any way be a motive or factor in dealing with criminality?
If yes, this is a point we disagree upon. We either discuss this very point, or we agree to disagree and acknowledge that we have no common ground for further discussions.
If no, let´s try to make sure we don´t let it slip in through the back door when discussing.

not entirely.
I think there is an argument for retribution, but it is not a great one. After all, we as humans are supposed to be above our animal instincts.
Like I have stated earlier, I have no clear opinion on this, I am very much a fence-sitter.
I would imagine if a member of my family had been murdered, I would feel very differently.

Well, instead of telling me why you adhere to the maxime „the punishment must fit the crime“, you merely point me to cases where it seems to be the applied.
Again: What is the idea behind „the punishment should fit the crime“? What do you hope to gain from it?

Justice.
A headline case a couple of years ago was of a middle-age man who had bused a child (not raped, but groped and photographed. Bad, but not a hanging crime [mataphorically of course]).
The reson it became a headline case is that the judge ordered him to sort himself out and buy the girl a new bike to cheer her up.
And that is ludicrous, his punishment did not fit the crime.

I want retribution to be entirely taken out of the equation. It is an irrational concept.
If we can´t agree on that, there is little common ground for comparing our approaches in terms of effectivity.

My point is that the common man sees punishment as a form of retribution; that is why a spate of horrific murders will always arouse public support for capital punishment.
i can see the argument, and i can see how barbaric it is. I didn't say I subscribe to it, I only raised the subject in order to evaluate others opinions.

To be honest, I can´t help feeling that you are trying to rationalize your desire for retribution.
You need to understand that retribution has no place in my approach. I understand your feelings and emotions (and oftentimes I find myself having similar emotions), but they I don´t want them to become a factor in our societal response.

But even life imprisonment is a form of retribution, surely?
As is believing that people will burn in hell for their crimes.

Couple of things:
1. you bring up „deterrent“ here, whilst actually you have already conceded that neither of the options available with the crimes in question is an effective means of deterrence. So quite apparently, whilst adjusting the costs of a ticket to the severity of the violation may work as an appropriate deterrent, the entire approach is completely baseless when it comes to the sort of crimes we are talking about.
Your ordinary murderer who kills his mother-in-law out of spontaneous rage does not think of the punishment, anyways. Else he wouldn´t do it, in the first place. He is out of his mind.
Neither is a sociopath able to buy into such considerations.
Neither is a sick compulsive murderer or child-abuser.
If thinking of professional criminals like violent bank-robbers, I think it is safe to assume that they tend to disregard the possibility that they will be caught and punished rather than rationally calculating the risk. I have problems imagining a professional criminal abstaining from a certain crime because it will earn him 10 instead 5 years of prison. If 5 years of prison aren´t a deterrent, 10 years aren´t either, and even less double the deterrent.
So the entire maxime of „fitting the crime“ (and it´s purpose of deterrence) goes completely beyond the reality of the things we are discussing.
2. I remember we agreed that „conditioning“ is not our preferred method of regulating human interaction. „Deterrence“, however, is the epitome of „conditioning“. Just saying.

Prison is a deterrent, and a reasonably effective one; but statistics show that it isn't enough to disuade people from a heat of the moment, spontaneous crime. Maybe are adrenal glands are just too big and our cerebral cortex too small....

I´m sorry, but I don´t seem to understand what you are saying here.
In any case, I think emotional blackmail is not a valid means in jurisdiction.

It is currently practised in English law, that if found guilty then before sentancing, the victim's family have a right to address the court.
This is no doubt used to influence the verdict, just in case the jusge has not realised how the lives of others are effected.
While I feel it is important to be aware of such considerations, I fear it is not without its limitations.

No, I don´t get your point at all. Please expand on it.

Imagine two people are murdered by different people ad the cases heard in different courts.
As the victim's family are allowed their say before sentencing, a man with a wife and kids will recieve more emotional arguments than a man with no family.
As this could very well effect the sentance, it means one man's life is worth more (in terms of jail time) than anothers.

No, I don´t think so. It says something about the conditions of our existence that unfortunately and inevadably comes with dilemmas.
And if we were stones, we wouldn´t have to engage in any considerations at all.

This is practically impossible. We are, however, used to being content with solutions that provide reasonable security without being entirely perfect in most every realm of life. I think that´s how far it gets, and that´s ok. If we want 100% security of violence crimes, we would have to eradicate humankind.

Unfortunatley I fear this is true.

It´s been a while since I watched it. So I am not sure how I´d think about it today. I found it interesting in that it shed light on quite some aspects at the dilemma we are talking about.
Basically it tells the story of a sociopath who – as an alternative to lifelong prison – takes part in an experiment. He is given drugs that make him abhorr everything he encounters (with this effect being lasting beyond the immediate influence of the drugs) and shown violence pictures. A form of re-programming through drugs, if you will.

But did it work?

I think that such conclusions based on the experience during half the lifespan of a human tend to be rashed.
Let´s be careful and not fall into the „things used to be better“ routine that apparently has accompanied the ageing process of humans since humanity came into existence, or at least has left records of its thinking.

My comment was a baseless one, almost a parody to show the weakness of the agument.
Clearly we live in interesting times, when we have the potential to acheive more than previous generations - especially in terms of knowledge.
Maybe we have never had it so good, but it still comes with drawbacks....

 

[NailsII]

To take notice of God word is to notice what it means to truly live. Take walk into Gods memory lane Genesis 9: 1-9

Meaningless double-talk.
God saw fit to justify stoning an adulterer, and the quote you provided says a killer of men should be killed by men.

[bible]Genesis 9:6[/bible]
Clearly a biblical stance will not help here.....

 

[gengwall]

Although the death penalty is supported both biblically and constitutionally (in the US), I have moved over time to the personal belief that grace is always the better choice.

 

[Taure]

That implies that the death penalty is what the people deserve, and that it's only because you're super nice that you let them live through grace...

 

[gengwall]

That implies that the death penalty is what the people deserve, and that it's only because you're super nice that you let them live through grace...

So? The bible implies that the death penalty is deserved in certain cases and the constitution allows it legally (though does not mandate it). I am not super nice, I just am following what I believe Jesus teaches is a "better" (though not the only legitimate) way of dealing with people. Jesus says that we all deserve the "death penalty" but that by grace we escape the noose.

 

[Taure]

Good thing I'm not a Christian then, so Jesus' words mean nothing to me...

Also good thing I'm not American, so the constitution means nothing to me...

I was under the impression that this thread was about what is right and wrong, not about what any specific text says about it. Constitution =/= what is necessarily right. Same thing for the Bible, though more people will contest that second one.

 

[gengwall]

Good thing I'm not a Christian then, so Jesus' words mean nothing to me...

Also good thing I'm not American, so the constitution means nothing to me...

I was under the impression that this thread was about what is right and wrong, not about what any specific text says about it. Constitution =/= what is necessarily right. Same thing for the Bible, though more people will contest that second one.

But "right" or "wrong" need a moral underpinning. Otherwise they are meerly subjective opinions. I accept that your basis is different than mine and therefore so is your conclusion. But that doesn't invalidate my basis or my conclusion.