12 Jul 09
Originally posted by FMFIf you can summarized, I'd be interested to know how you got taken to task. Nobody can convince me innocent people don't get fried (although we can disagree on the frequency), nor can anyone convince me it's "worth it"
I once argued the same thing and got taken to task in a rather interesting way by no1marauder. See here, if you're interested: Thread 105419 from about page 2 onwards.
13 Jul 09
2 edits
Originally posted by gambit3Originally posted by FMF
The death penalty is not immoral.
It is immoral. For a whole range of reasons. But one will suffice here. It can - and has - been applied in error. Innocents have been executed. Even the slightest possiblity that this might happen makes it completely immoral and utterly unconscionable.
Originally posted by no1marauder
Does the "slightest possibility" that you might hit a pedestrian while driving mean automobiles are "immoral"?
Originally posted by FMF
No of course not. The objective of driving an automobile isn't 'killing someone' whereas the objective of an execution is.
zeeb:
the object of an execution is not a wrongful execution.
13 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by zeeblebotName another endeavor that is both, unnecessary and results in the loss of innocent life.
what other endeavors of government do you require perfection in?
Edit: Also, if you were wrongly convicted and the government had you strapped to the chair asking you for your last words....
At that moment would you consider yourself a worthy sacrifice so politicians can say they're "tough on crime"?
13 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperI'm curious, can you give me a person in the U.S. that was executed, but later found out to be innocent? (modern times, i.e., not a salem witch).
Name another endeavor that is both, unnecessary and results in the loss of innocent life.
Edit: Also, if you were wrongly convicted and the government had you strapped to the chair asking you for your last words....
At that moment would you consider yourself a worthy sacrifice so politicians can say they're "tough on crime"?
13 Jul 09
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenI did a quick search and couldn't find any, but frankly there might not be many because people don't necessarily fight to investigate further after the death of the inmate.
I'm curious, can you give me a person in the U.S. that was executed, but later found out to be innocent? (modern times, i.e., not a salem witch).
There are a number of examples of people exonerated while on death row though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exonerated_death_row_inmates#United_States
13 Jul 09
Originally posted by karnachzRestitution is a reason to order restitution, not to punish. Paying back what you stole is not a punishment, it's a remediation. Restitution is usually part of a criminal sentence for theft.
I believe you left out Denunciation and Restitution. Interesting example you give, though.
I never heard or "denunciation" as a reason to punish. Sounds like a hybrid between retribution and deterrence.
13 Jul 09
Originally posted by karnachzThose raw numbers are not determinative. there could be other reasons those states have higher murder rates. Your points to one potential factor of what could be scores or hundreds. In New York, murders went down sharply after the death penalty was re-instated (no one was executed, but it was on the books from 1994 until 2005). In 1991, in New York City, there were about 2,100 murders. Last year, there were about 500. In fact, New York City is now, per capita, the safest big city in the United States. I don't think there's much of a correlation between the death penalty being put on the books in 1994 and that number, but my point is that you can't draw any conclusion from raw statistics when there are so many other variables.
Mostly correct, except that there isn't even evidence for a "minimal" deterrence effect. In actual fact, US states which have the death penalty have higher murder and violent crime rates than those which don't. So, it seems that either the death penalty encourages violent crime by devaluing human life, or else the correlation is instead explained by intermediary variables.
The studies that do study the effectiveness of the death penalties control for all the other variables they can think of.
Truthfully, there's no real difference whether the deterrent effect is "minimal" or "none." Either way, it probably doesn't justify the risk of executing an innocent person unless the deterrent effect were substantial.
13 Jul 09
Originally posted by zeeblebotPutting innocent people in jail is also a terrible thing. Yet the system does sacrifice some innocent people on the alter of crime reduction. It's unfortunate, but incarceration is a necessary deterrent to reduce crime. The death penalty, where applied in the US, has the same standard of guilt as any other crime; i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt. If the death penalty were a necessary deterrent it could be similarly justified. The argument that best militates against the death penalty is that it's not much of a deterrent. As such, it's not justified.
Originally posted by FMF
[b]It is immoral. For a whole range of reasons. But one will suffice here. It can - and has - been applied in error. Innocents have been executed. Even the slightest possiblity that this might happen makes it completely immoral and utterly unconscionable.
Originally posted by no1marauder
Does the "slightes ...[text shortened]... execution is.
zeeb:
the object of an execution is not a wrongful execution.[/b]
13 Jul 09
Originally posted by sh76The argument that best militates against the death penalty is the moral one, the one of principle, as opposed to the technocratic reason you suggest.
The argument that best militates against the death penalty is that it's not much of a deterrent. As such, it's not justified.
13 Jul 09
Originally posted by FMFWorrying about morality and principle is rather idealistic when speaking about someone that chops up and murders one's entire family. On the other hand, a life sentence of HARD LABOR would be a much tougher sentence than the easy way out of simply dieing. It's to bad prison is closer to a county club these days.
The argument that best militates against the death penalty is the moral one, the one of principle, as opposed to the technocratic reason you suggest.
13 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFOkay; that's fine. So say you.
The argument that best militates against the death penalty is the moral one, the one of principle, as opposed to the technocratic reason you suggest.
I say as follows:
Is it immoral to put an innocent person in jail?
Answer: Yes
Does the justice systems of virtually every civilization on Earth fail to foreclose on the possibility that an innocent person will be sent to jail?
Answer: Yes
How could the justice systems of virtually every civilization on Earth do something that is immoral?
Answer: Because doing something unintentionally immoral on occasion is necessitated and justified by the need to maintain law and order in society.
Is executing a murderer immoral?
Answer: No
Is executing an innocent person immoral?
Answer: Yes.
If it could be shown that no innocent people were ever executed, would I be in favor of the death penalty?
Answer: Yes
If it could be shown that the death penalty were a significant deterrent and saved many lives, would that justify the death penalty even if an innocent person would on occasion, be executed?
Answer: I'm not sure; it's an interesting question. Reasonable people could differ in answering it
If it could not be shown that the death penalty were a significant deterrent and saved many lives, is the death penalty justified even if an innocent person would on occasion, be executed?
Answer: No
Ergo: The best argument against the death penalty is that it is not a proven deterrent.
13 Jul 09
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenUrban legend.
Worrying about morality and principle is rather idealistic when speaking about someone that chops up and murders one's entire family. On the other hand, a life sentence of HARD LABOR would be a much tougher sentence than the easy way out of simply dieing. It's to bad prison is closer to a county club these days.
Prisons are tough, nasty places, especially the blue collar prisons where the murderers go.
13 Jul 09
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenNo it's not. Not at all. In fact it's EXACTLY when we should worry about morality and principle.
Worrying about morality and principle is rather idealistic when speaking about someone that chops up and murders one's entire family.