Capital punishment right or wrong?

[Zierro]

Wow, I thought you out of all people would know what a strawman is since you throw it around quite often. :lol:

 

 

 

Stop throwing statistics and data to the way side because you don't like where the evidence points towards. That's called being an ideological hack.

 

 

 

I can say the same thing about you throwing all logic out the window because you don't like where the evidence lies. In fact, if I remember correctly, you don't even agree with self-defense. Of course you're going to make the death penalty out to be something more immoral than the actual people who deserve it. You just have a weird thing for making people look like they're evil and bigots. :-#

[Bloodstain]

So you're telling me that you don't like stats (which are just murder rates, which are going to be very consistent no matter WHO conducts the study) because it is able to back people's statements up while the other side has none.

 

 

 

When did I ever say I don't have arguments for my side? :?

 

 

 

There are your statistics, which make no logical sense. And then there is the argument and statistics that show the validity of operant conditioning - you are more likely to do things if they offer a good reward, and less likely to do things if they offer a harsh consequence - which makes a lot of logical sense.

 

 

 

 

Show me these statistics please. Conditioning doesn't mean jack, because for that to happen people have to have had punishment or negative reinforcement. If you haven't gone to jail that isn't going to be there. Also what was said above, alot of murders are committed in the heat of the moment with no forethought to the consequences. Oh, and how do the statistics (which you haven't even presented) show the validity of your argument when I've already posted one that shows it's BS?

 

 

 

So you're telling me that when you kill an innocent person you just go "oh [cabbage], my bad, guess I learned from this!"? There are over ONE HUNDRED known people that have been put on death row, INNOCENT people.

 

 

 

When did I ever say that either? You really need to stop with the strawmans.

 

 

 

My point is that neither system is perfect. Sometimes people will be released or escape and go around murdering again, which is very bad. And sometimes people will get the death penalty even though they were innocent, which is very bad too. Neither sounds any better than the other.

 

 

 

A) I assumed that is what you meant, because half the time I cannot decipher your posts.

 

2) You tip iters need to stop throwing the word strawman and logical phallacy around like it's going out of style. Give me an argument

 

 

 

 

 

I hate arguing this stuff with people who have no idea on how the CJ system works or any knowledge on the ideas around the CJ system

 

 

 

 

 

e: thanks for bringing up another good point I was going to get to. The criminal justice system will always be flawed, which is another very good reason to keep ultimate punishments away. If I were innocent I'd rather get sentenced to 25 to life and have the chance of being exonerated than be executed and be exonerated posthumous.

 

 

 

Some innocent people will always be sentenced, so to have the death penalty is a bad idea

[Housepig]

I don't have the problem with the 'capital' part, but it's the 'punishment' that concerns me. Using the term 'punishment' implies that the system is based on 'justice' (i.e. petty revenge) and not on rehabilitation and reperation.

 

 

 

In extreme cases (such as incurable sociopaths who cannot be safely contained in a detention centre and/or have a low quality of life), it's all for the greater good--as cliched and euthemesitc as that sounds. But one thing I can't stand is this notion of justice. Murderers do not deserve death because deserving anything is entirely arbitrary and meaningless anyway, and the system should be based on removing crime, not carrying out meaningless acts of retribution.

 

 

 

I imagine capital punishment probably does serve as a deterrent, but that shouldn't be the point: if we focuss on deterring people, then we may have empty courts, but the minute the deterrent goes away, crime will shoot back up again. Deterring is a temporary solution; rehabilitation is permanent. If rehabilitation is impossible, disposal is necessary.

 

 

 

I'd brin g up the argument of "An eye for an eye. A tooth for a tooth." Which, by the way, doesn't mean revenge. It means equal treatment. If at all possible, you kill someone and are found guilty of murder, you die the same way they did.

 

 

 

And how exactly do you ethically justify that? The way I see it, no action is categorically right or wrong, and equilibrium has no value. It's all just means to an end (which is happiness).

[Lateralus]

So you're telling me that you don't like stats (which are just murder rates, which are going to be very consistent no matter WHO conducts the study) because it is able to back people's statements up while the other side has none.

 

 

 

When did I ever say I don't have arguments for my side? :?

 

 

 

There are your statistics, which make no logical sense. And then there is the argument and statistics that show the validity of operant conditioning - you are more likely to do things if they offer a good reward, and less likely to do things if they offer a harsh consequence - which makes a lot of logical sense.

 

 

 

It's about perception. As much as I love logic, when you're dealing with something as irrational as human fear of consequence it gets thrown out the window almost entirely. If people don't expect to be caught, then there's nothing for them to fear. It's the same reason why people will happily get in their car and drive tens of thousands of miles per year but are afraid to get on a plane. In terms of mileage and in terms of hours spent travelling, being in a car is much, much more dangerous and more likely to end in fatality.

[Zierro]

Show me these statistics please. Conditioning doesn't mean jack, because for that to happen people have to have had punishment or negative reinforcement. If you haven't gone to jail that isn't going to be there. Also what was said above, alot of murders are committed in the heat of the moment with no forethought to the consequences. Oh, and how do the statistics (which you haven't even presented) show the validity of your argument when I've already posted one that shows it's BS?

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning

 

 

 

If you want to get into semantics, it's technically not operant conditioning, but I believe terms like this should be used flexibly to get points across better.

 

 

 

To sum it up, if you know you will get shocked if you push a button, you'll most likely stop pushing it. If you know you will get candy if you push a button, you'll most likely keep pushing it. It makes logical sense, because you see it everyday. It's a simple and universal concept. Why are people afraid of messing with bees? Well, people don't like getting stung and bees are known to sting, therefore people would prefer to stay away from bees.

 

 

 

A) I assumed that is what you meant, because half the time I cannot decipher your posts.

 

 

 

If you can't decipher them, then why don't you ask me to clarify instead of responding to something you're not even sure that I said?

 

 

 

2) You tip iters need to stop throwing the word strawman and logical phallacy around like it's going out of style. Give me an argument

 

 

 

There's a perfect solution to this. Stop strawmanning and people won't say you are. I agree that strawman is cliched, but complaining about it is cliched too now.

 

 

 

It's about perception. As much as I love logic, when you're dealing with something as irrational as human fear of consequence it gets thrown out the window almost entirely.

 

 

 

Yes, people do tend to become irrational with their fears. Spiders are a good example.

 

 

 

The operant conditioning argument is nowhere near perfect, it's just I think it's still better than statistics. With logic, you can argue all you want, good logic overrides the bad logic, and you can always seek a better premise since there are infinite ways to look at things. Statistics are pretty much set in stone, or at least they try to be.

 

 

 

If people don't expect to be caught, then there's nothing for them to fear.

 

 

 

People don't expect it, but the possibility is definitely existent in their minds. Every time I skipped a class in school (showing off on the net ftw!), I was a little paranoid about getting caught. But if I knew 100% that I would get caught, why would I do it in the first place? The punishment was worth it to me. A small percent chance that I would get detention. Whoopty doo. However, if skippers were shot on the spot, I wouldn't dare to.

[Bloodstain]

Show me these statistics please. Conditioning doesn't mean jack, because for that to happen people have to have had punishment or negative reinforcement. If you haven't gone to jail that isn't going to be there. Also what was said above, alot of murders are committed in the heat of the moment with no forethought to the consequences. Oh, and how do the statistics (which you haven't even presented) show the validity of your argument when I've already posted one that shows it's BS?

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning

 

 

 

If you want to get into semantics, it's technically not operant conditioning, but I believe terms like this should be used flexibly to get points across better.

 

 

 

To sum it up, if you know you will get shocked if you push a button, you'll most likely stop pushing it. If you know you will get candy if you push a button, you'll most likely keep pushing it. It makes logical sense, because you see it everyday. It's a simple and universal concept. Why are people afraid of messing with bees? Well, people don't like getting stung and bees are known to sting, therefore people would prefer to stay away from bees.

 

 

 

A) I assumed that is what you meant, because half the time I cannot decipher your posts.

 

 

 

If you can't decipher them, then why don't you ask me to clarify instead of responding to something you're not even sure that I said?

 

 

 

2) You tip iters need to stop throwing the word strawman and logical phallacy around like it's going out of style. Give me an argument

 

 

 

There's a perfect solution to this. Stop strawmanning and people won't say you are. I agree that strawman is cliched, but complaining about it is cliched too now.

 

 

 

I know what operant conditioning is, I've taken psychology and am some what minoring in it right now in university. That said, I don't think operant conditioning has any room in this argument

 

 

 

Because asking you to decipher them will likely result in more that i cannot decipher, so then, please decipher what I quoted originally (about the murderers getting free and such)

 

 

 

I am not straw manning, I am taking common viewpoints from people who support CP (never said these were coming from your mouth) and trying to offer a reason as to why they are wrong. Instead of repeatedly posting about me straw manning, try coming up with an argument that refutes what I say or show me why I am wrong, you know, contribute something to this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E: The wiki link isn't a statistic lmao, it's just an explanation of what operant is. How is that a statistic?

[Zierro]

I know what operant conditioning is, I've taken psychology and am some what minoring in it right now in university. That said, I don't think operant conditioning has any room in this argument

 

 

 

Operant conditioning is the use of consequences to modify the occurrence and form of behavior.

 

 

 

How is this irrelevant to the justice system again?

 

 

 

Because asking you to decipher them will likely result in more that i cannot decipher, so then, please decipher what I quoted originally (about the murderers getting free and such)

 

 

 

Ah, so attacking things that you even admitted you cannot decipher is better?

 

 

 

(never said these were coming from your mouth)

 

 

 

Yes you did:

 

 

 

So you're telling me that you don't like stats (which are just murder rates, which are going to be very consistent no matter WHO conducts the study) because it is able to back people's statements up while the other side has none.

 

 

 

So you're telling me that when you kill an innocent person you just go "oh [cabbage], my bad, guess I learned from this!"?

 

 

 

Lying is bad for your credibility. :shame:

 

 

 

Instead of repeatedly posting about me straw manning, try coming up with an argument that refutes what I say or show me why I am wrong, you know, contribute something to this.

 

 

 

I have. You just chose not to read them. How ironic. Wasn't that like the first thing you said to me on this thread?

 

 

 

E: The wiki link isn't a statistic lmao, it's just an explanation of what operant is. How is that a statistic?

 

 

 

Obviously there were statistics that prove the validity of operant conditioning or else it wouldn't exist. I found out about operant conditioning in my Psychology textbook. The theory was proved with statistics about a rat's box (Skinner Box or something I think). I do not have my textbook anymore so I thought it would be more efficient to give you a link.

[Bloodstain]

I know what operant conditioning is, I've taken psychology and am some what minoring in it right now in university. That said, I don't think operant conditioning has any room in this argument

 

 

 

Operant conditioning is the use of consequences to modify the occurrence and form of behavior.

 

 

 

How is this irrelevant to the justice system again?

 

 

 

 

Person A kills person B. Person A goes to jail. Person A learns not to kill people or you get sent to jail, person A gets a life sentence. That's the only example I could come up with for your operant conditioning and capital punishment.

 

 

 

 

Because asking you to decipher them will likely result in more that i cannot decipher, so then, please decipher what I quoted originally (about the murderers getting free and such)

 

 

 

Ah, so attacking things that you even admitted you cannot decipher is better?

 

 

 

 

I can't decipher it because it's a mess. No punctuation and I have no idea what you are trying to say

 

 

 

 

 

 

(never said these were coming from your mouth)

 

 

 

Yes you did:

 

 

 

So you're telling me that you don't like stats (which are just murder rates, which are going to be very consistent no matter WHO conducts the study) because it is able to back people's statements up while the other side has none.

 

 

 

 

from you:

 

 

 

The thing I dislike the most about statistics is that they barely allow room for arguing against.

 

 

 

 

So you're telling me that when you kill an innocent person you just go "oh [cabbage], my bad, guess I learned from this!"?

 

 

 

Lying is bad for your credibility. :shame:

 

 

 

 

That's why I phrased it in the form of a question, if I were sure what you were trying to say I would have phrased it differently. Please, correct me on what you really meant, because I still have no clue

 

 

The same thing people do when they release a criminal that goes around raping and murdering again. "[bleep], I gambled the wrong hand."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Instead of repeatedly posting about me straw manning, try coming up with an argument that refutes what I say or show me why I am wrong, you know, contribute something to this.

 

 

 

I have. You just chose not to read them. How ironic. Wasn't that like the first thing you said to me on this thread?

 

 

 

 

You have derailed into getting hung up on straw man this and statistics aren't reliable that. You're getting off the topic of CP

 

 

 

 

 

 

E: The wiki link isn't a statistic lmao, it's just an explanation of what operant is. How is that a statistic?

 

 

 

Obviously there were statistics that prove the validity of operant conditioning or else it wouldn't exist. I found out about operant conditioning in my Psychology textbook. The theory was proved with statistics about a rat's box (Skinner Box or something I think). I do not have my textbook anymore so I thought it would be more efficient to give you a link.

 

 

 

 

I know the Skinner box, I know operant and classical, it was a major topic in my class. Perhaps I should clarify: I know operant conditioning is you know, NOT bs, but tell me how it relates to capital punishment. How is it relevant? Give me examples and studies or some kind of proof backing it up in capital punishment. Because to me it just seems you wanted to fit operant conditioning SOMEWHERE, but I don't see it as being anywhere near the realm of relevant in this topic.

 

 

 

^After that operant thing, can we please get back to the topic?

[Bloodstain]

Post does not = edit

 

 

 

Well might as well make use of this post:

 

 

 

In an effort to get back to the topic, let's discard the deterrent idea. What other reason is there to keep capital punishment around?

[Azvareth]

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009 ... fact_grann

 

 

 

Welp, there we go. Texas executed a legally innocent man.

[Bloodstain]

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann

 

 

 

Welp, there we go. Texas executed a legally innocent man.

 

 

 

 

 

You wouldn't happen to be a goon would you?

[Azvareth]

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann

 

 

 

Welp, there we go. Texas executed a legally innocent man.

 

 

 

 

 

You wouldn't happen to be a goon would you?

 

 

 

Well, I'm a member of the forums. And yes, I totally copy-pasted the article from there.

[Giordano]

I don't have the problem with the 'capital' part, but it's the 'punishment' that concerns me. Using the term 'punishment' implies that the system is based on 'justice' (i.e. petty revenge) and not on rehabilitation and reperation.

 

 

 

In extreme cases (such as incurable sociopaths who cannot be safely contained in a detention centre and/or have a low quality of life), it's all for the greater good--as cliched and euthemesitc as that sounds. But one thing I can't stand is this notion of justice. Murderers do not deserve death because deserving anything is entirely arbitrary and meaningless anyway, and the system should be based on removing crime, not carrying out meaningless acts of retribution.

 

 

 

Actually, justice IS revenge. Rehabilitation wouldn't be justice, it would be help. If human kind had the big enough heart to forgive and help society's criminals we wouldn't need the judicial system. It would just be a system with doctors and psychologist who would help the minds of those guilty change. But human kind isn't like that and you're never going to change it.

 

 

 

If Bob killed my sheep, I'm not gonna discuss with him what he could do better over lamb stew, but I'm going to go over to his farm and kill his sheep.

 

 

 

 

 

I'd brin g up the argument of "An eye for an eye. A tooth for a tooth." Which, by the way, doesn't mean revenge. It means equal treatment. If at all possible, you kill someone and are found guilty of murder, you die the same way they did.

 

 

 

And how exactly do you ethically justify that? The way I see it, no action is categorically right or wrong, and equilibrium has no value. It's all just means to an end (which is happiness).

 

And that whole "nothing is bad or good"/"balance"/"Can good exist without evil?" things are all a bunch of crap. In a universal view, there is no law. There are no customs. It's a giant free-for-all. That much is true, take a look at the animal kingdom for instance. But if humans behaved like that, if humans went on to a survival of the fittest, we wouldn't be in the technological age of today. We needed safety first to come up with ideas and research them. If Bob wanted to take my meat, I had to protect it and guard it constantly. Other humans would take my food too or hoard up the animals so I can't hunt any. We don't have time to stop and think about new techology or ideas. We had to keep the house safe.

 

 

 

Which is why we need some sort of "good action" view. When actuality, it's more of a mutual action. Keep to yourself, follow the golden rule and you don't have to donate to charity or work in volunteer to be "good". This provides the most happiness to all of us, where as survival of the fittest the majority of us would be dead or living in crappy conditions.

[meol]

magekillr posted that link back in the first page. :P

 

 

 

Let's see Zierro, you asked to have your logic fought with logic instead of statistics, so I'll try to oblige. Your argument is that having a bad enough consequence for crime (capital punishment) might deter, or at least alleviate crime. As far as I understand, you're extending the grasp of operant conditioning from the individuals (as explained in the article, this occurs with single rats, cats or humans) to society as a whole, where punishing a human will create a conditioning on another.

 

 

 

You might be failing to see that there is more behind human ethics than a balance of consequences. For instance, people may act without thinking about consequences (e.g. if their thought is impaired by drugs, they act in the spur of the moment, or as a symptom of a mental illness). They can also play down the importance of the punishment altogether (most criminals don't expect to be caught when they commit a crime), or they might overrate a potential reward; there could some kind of "principles" that overrides self-interest-driven morals (so capital punishment won't deter, let's say, suicide bombers).

[Lateralus]

I also think the conditioning argument is misplaced. If things were that simple it would make criminology completely redundant as a field of study.

[Zierro]

As far as I understand, you're extending the grasp of operant conditioning from the individuals (as explained in the article, this occurs with single rats, cats or humans) to society as a whole, where punishing a human will create a conditioning on another.

 

 

 

I don't see empathy as much of a stretch. If I saw someone get attacked by bees and they told me how bad it hurt, it would be nearly the same as me getting attacked and learning the lesson off of my own personal experiences. Another example is looking both ways before you cross. I have never been hit by a car. But from what I've heard and seen I definitely don't want that to ever happen, so looking both ways is definitely worth it for me.

 

 

 

You might be failing to see that there is more behind human ethics than a balance of consequences. For instance, people may act without thinking about consequences (e.g. if their thought is impaired by drugs, they act in the spur of the moment, or as a symptom of a mental illness). They can also play down the importance of the punishment altogether (most criminals don't expect to be caught when they commit a crime), or they might overrate a potential reward; there could some kind of "principles" that overrides self-interest-driven morals (so capital punishment won't deter, let's say, suicide bombers).

 

 

 

You bring up some good points here, but the thing is, those are all pretty much exceptions to the big picture. Of course being messed up on drugs or passionate crimes cannot be deterred, but I don't think we can say those occur in the majority of crimes. This just proves that the death penalty will not be a deterrent for everyone. In the majority of crimes, I believe the criminal was in conscious control and had the ability to decide whether they would go through with it or not.

 

 

 

In an effort to get back to the topic, let's discard the deterrent idea. What other reason is there to keep capital punishment around?

 

 

 

Gladly, since it doesn't seem like you're making much of an attempt to stay on topic either. If someone kidnaps a little girl, molests them, tortures them, kills her, then mutilates her body, I don't care about his well-being.

 

 

 

Firstly, I think he is better off not existing. I wish that man has never been born. But you can't have everything, so taking him out is the next best thing. If he is on this planet, there is a good chance that he will do it again. That chance must be eradicated. I wish to terminate the hacking up of little girls - I'm not an evil person bent on looking for excuses to watch bodies squirm and writhe, like some of you seem to think (Mage*cough*).

 

 

 

Secondly, according to his own standards, you would not be doing anything wrong. Maybe in the eyes of others you are, but in his eyes, you are only doing exactly what he himself thinks is okay. I am a strong believer of equality. If someone mows my lawn for free, I want to return the favor. If someone punches me for no reason, I want to return the favor. You are just giving them the same experience they have gave others. (I know we said we wouldn't bring up the deterrent thing, but this fits in perfectly here. Would you rather get your lawn mowed for free or would you rather get punched? You'd rather get your lawn mowed. It's a social system that aims to make it more likely for people to do good deeds instead of bad ones. This is what I meant by operant conditioning.)

 

 

 

Thirdly, eye for an eye is a natural human thing. When I see someone get flamed on the forums and they flame that person back, that is eye for an eye. I see this more often than I see people say they agree with eye for an eye here. It reminds me a lot of PETA. While preaching about moral righteousness, they don't abide by it themselves. I think all of us here have done something bad because someone has wronged us before, and this is perfectly reasonable. There's nothing barbaric and uncivil about eye for an eye. It's the fairest thing humanity has to offer.

[Lateralus]

Thirdly, eye for an eye is a natural human thing. When I see someone get flamed on the forums and they flame that person back, that is eye for an eye. I see this more often than I see people say they agree with eye for an eye here. It reminds me a lot of PETA. While preaching about moral righteousness, they don't abide by it themselves. I think all of us here have done something bad because someone has wronged us before, and this is perfectly reasonable. There's nothing barbaric and uncivil about eye for an eye. It's the fairest thing humanity has to offer.

 

 

 

A few problems I see here.

 

 

 

Calling something naturally human is not something I see as complimentary. Aside from that, capital punishment is unique in the sense of 'an eye for an eye'. If we're killing killers are we to start raping rapists? Mugging muggers? If it's just a case of someone getting what they deserve then 'an eye for an eye' is not applicable at all, since we have to decide what people deserve rather than just replying in kind. Also, if you're adamant that people get what they deserve, every wrongful execution undermines your system entirely. Wrongful imprisonment is also a terrible thing, I agree, but at least steps can be taken to rectify and compensate in that case, however lacking they may be.

 

 

 

Capital punishment as it is now is not applied uniformly. This means that some (many, in fact) murderers do not recieve the death penalty, which also undermines the deterrent argument. If you want to execute every murderer then this argument is applicable, but it's got a strong case in the U.S. right now.

[Zierro]

Calling something naturally human is not something I see as complimentary.

 

 

 

Not complimentary, but reasonable.

 

 

 

Aside from that, capital punishment is unique in the sense of 'an eye for an eye'. If we're killing killers are we to start raping rapists? Mugging muggers? If it's just a case of someone getting what they deserve then 'an eye for an eye' is not applicable at all, since we have to decide what people deserve rather than just replying in kind.

 

 

 

I always thought eye for an eye wasn't supposed to be taken literally. Well, that's what Wiki said at least. I might have misread the page though. What I meant by "eye for an eye" was exactly what you said: a punishment that fits the crime. I just used specific examples of the same things for simplicity.

 

 

 

Also, if you're adamant that people get what they deserve, every wrongful execution undermines your system entirely. Wrongful imprisonment is also a terrible thing, I agree, but at least steps can be taken to rectify and compensate in that case, however lacking they may be.

 

 

 

I agree with this, except for one thing. It goes into the whole "Would you rather let 10 guilty men go or imprison 1 innocent man?" Imprisoning the innocent is a terrible thing to do. But at the same time, allowing criminals a second chance to commit another crime is terrible as well. I'm pretty much middle ground with this dilemma. If I was going to be wrongfully executed, I'd be pissed. If a murderer escaped prison or was let out and then killed someone close to me, I'd be pissed. Human beings are not perfect, so it's impossible for our justice system to be.

 

 

 

Capital punishment as it is now is not applied uniformly. This means that some (many, in fact) murderers do not recieve the death penalty, which also undermines the deterrent argument. If you want to execute every murderer then this argument is applicable, but it's got a strong case in the U.S. right now.

 

 

 

Depends on the murder. I don't think self-defense should be punishable unless they overdid it. I don't think negligence/manslaughter should warrant the death penalty, but it definitely should be punishable.

[Me_Hate_Libs]

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann

 

 

 

Welp, there we go. Texas executed a legally innocent man.

 

 

 

That's not fair. That's Texas. Don't judge our whole country by what texas does.

[Bloodstain]

Human beings are not perfect, so it's impossible for our justice system to be.

 

 

 

 

This is another reason to abolish the death penalty

[Zierro]

Human beings are not perfect, so it's impossible for our justice system to be.

 

 

 

 

This is another reason to abolish the death penalty

 

 

 

Isn't that exactly what my response was directed towards?

 

 

 

The justice system (with or without the death penalty) isn't going to be perfect. With the death penalty, there's the chance of false accusations. Without the death penalty, there's the chance that murderers will murder again. I'm on the fence when it comes to this aspect. I said this in the sentences right next to what you quoted.

[Bloodstain]

Human beings are not perfect, so it's impossible for our justice system to be.

 

 

 

 

This is another reason to abolish the death penalty

 

 

 

Isn't that exactly what my response was directed towards?

 

 

 

The justice system (with or without the death penalty) isn't going to be perfect. With the death penalty, there's the chance of false accusations. Without the death penalty, there's the chance that murderers will murder again. I'm on the fence when it comes to this aspect. I said this in the sentences right next to what you quoted.

 

 

 

If you take capital punishment away, murderers won't go free. They'll get life sentences

[Zierro]

Not all murderers get a life sentence, and they can also escape or kill someone else in jail. In other words, a life sentence doesn't mean they are nonexistent to society.

 

 

 

Plus, I don't see why you think life in prison is any better than the death sentence. As someone already said, a life sentence is a death sentence by old age. Not only that, but I don't see how keeping someone in the same building for 50+ years until they die is not considered cruel and unusual punishment but killing them quickly and ending their suffering somehow is.

[Housepig]

I don't have the problem with the 'capital' part, but it's the 'punishment' that concerns me. Using the term 'punishment' implies that the system is based on 'justice' (i.e. petty revenge) and not on rehabilitation and reperation.

 

 

 

In extreme cases (such as incurable sociopaths who cannot be safely contained in a detention centre and/or have a low quality of life), it's all for the greater good--as cliched and euthemesitc as that sounds. But one thing I can't stand is this notion of justice. Murderers do not deserve death because deserving anything is entirely arbitrary and meaningless anyway, and the system should be based on removing crime, not carrying out meaningless acts of retribution.

 

 

 

Actually, justice IS revenge. Rehabilitation wouldn't be justice, it would be help. If human kind had the big enough heart to forgive and help society's criminals we wouldn't need the judicial system. It would just be a system with doctors and psychologist who would help the minds of those guilty change. But human kind isn't like that and you're never going to change it.

 

 

 

If Bob killed my sheep, I'm not gonna discuss with him what he could do better over lamb stew, but I'm going to go over to his farm and kill his sheep.

 

 

 

Actualy, the vast majority of people have the capacity to be "pro-social", and humankind can be changed. Your picture of an ideal judiciary system is flawed anyway, because we would still need judges and so on even if the aim was rehabilitation, and prisons would still be necessary as part of rehabilitory process. Humankind may not be like that now, but people can be changed.

 

 

 

The last part of your argument is frankly not an argument at all but a statement on human instinct. Just because we have revenge hard-wired into our being as an internal instinct, it doesn't mean revenge is desirable. Remember that instincts serve our genes' survival, not our happiness.

 

 

 

 

 

I'd brin g up the argument of "An eye for an eye. A tooth for a tooth." Which, by the way, doesn't mean revenge. It means equal treatment. If at all possible, you kill someone and are found guilty of murder, you die the same way they did.

 

 

 

And how exactly do you ethically justify that? The way I see it, no action is categorically right or wrong, and equilibrium has no value. It's all just means to an end (which is happiness).

 

 

 

And that whole "nothing is bad or good"/"balance"/"Can good exist without evil?" things are all a bunch of crap. In a universal view, there is no law. There are no customs. It's a giant free-for-all. That much is true, take a look at the animal kingdom for instance. But if humans behaved like that, if humans went on to a survival of the fittest, we wouldn't be in the technological age of today. We needed safety first to come up with ideas and research them. If Bob wanted to take my meat, I had to protect it and guard it constantly. Other humans would take my food too or hoard up the animals so I can't hunt any. We don't have time to stop and think about new techology or ideas. We had to keep the house safe.

 

 

 

Which is why we need some sort of "good action" view. When actuality, it's more of a mutual action. Keep to yourself, follow the golden rule and you don't have to donate to charity or work in volunteer to be "good". This provides the most happiness to all of us, where as survival of the fittest the majority of us would be dead or living in crappy conditions.

 

 

 

So, you're saying that obeying the instinct of revenge and justice provides the best quality of life? There is no law, we do need a "golden rule" (or standard, but never mind the details); But revenge is an instinct--it is 'designed' for the survival of our genes, and whilst it may have helped humankind when we had fight to survive, that doesn't give it any value in modern society. We have outgrown instinct and should see it as something to be treated with deep suspicion and scrutiny.

[Bloodstain]

Not all murderers get a life sentence, and they can also escape or kill someone else in jail. In other words, a life sentence doesn't mean they are nonexistent to society.

 

 

 

Plus, I don't see why you think life in prison is any better than the death sentence. As someone already said, a life sentence is a death sentence by old age. Not only that, but I don't see how keeping someone in the same building for 50+ years until they die is not considered cruel and unusual punishment but killing them quickly and ending their suffering somehow is.

 

 

 

They may not get life sentences, but they probably aren't going to kill again after over a decade in jail, plus the I would assume the ones that get out before dieing/being incredibly old are those that aren't ruthless killers (example: In a province, I think Alberta, a guy killed his daughter by way of hooking the exhaust through a hose into the car with her in it. She had a condition that basically made her a vegetable IIRC and she was always in pain. He went to jail and got out not too long ago I think. Not exactly a risk to society)

 

 

 

. 89% of murderers went to prison, 3% to jail, 7% probation, and 1% "other" in 2004.

 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/s ... 102tab.htm

 

 

 

And check out the mandatory sentences for murder by state:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder#Pun ... _by_states

 

 

 

People who receive the death sentence got there because they were found guilty (for the sake of argument, we'll say they ARE guilty), take away the death penalty and it'll just be replaced with life in prison likely and no one has to be killed. Prison breaks are really, really, really not likely.

 

 

 

Yeah, they could kill people in jail, but if they're that much of a danger it's likely they'll be locked in their cell for most of the day and not get to interact much, ignoring the fact that OTHER types of offenders kill in jail too. As to whether or not it's worse than death, you can still maintain some socializing and regularity in prison (assuming you aren't a crazy serial killer or super max or whatever). Hell, give them a choice (AFTER psychological tests and a couple years in prison) to stay in jail the rest of their lives or get injected. Then it's voluntary, if they're just going to hang themselves in their cell a little down the line, give them an option. (Although I can't say I agree with this 100% or that it would be a realistic option)