Eye for an eye

[sees_all1]

I have no idea how much the diamond costs or how much profit the labor yields. We already have community service which works in the same vein, but only not for profit. So it sounds reasonable to use a similar system to that, especially if you've committed theft and are unable to pay out of your own pocket.

Not just any diamond, the Hope diamond. You know, priceless. Eye for an eye would fail in this situation, because you'd basically give them a life sentence for a crime as simple as theft.

 

Eye for an eye would also force people to place a price on other's lives, some sort of human-currency conversion.

[Zierro]

What I think falls flat is the actual subjectivity of an eye for eye, using your logic Crusty. Who is to decide what punishment fits the crime, and have the same standard of punishment across the range of crimes 'available'. Right now, people who create the punishments seem to think they fit the crime, but you don't. This whole business really is one big melting pot of subjectivity, and there will always be people who disagree.

 

Of course it's subjective, as is the current system. I'm willing to debate how all of those petty crimes I listed aren't nearly as malicious as rape or murder though. I've heard of a case where a man got life in prison for selling pills and a rapist only got a few years. To me, that's just ridiculous. Subjective or not, it doesn't mean I shouldn't fight for what I think is right. That's the very thing that keeps government alive. (Also, see the first post of this thread. It talks about moral "objectivity" and why eye for an eye is the least subjective approach we can use.)

 

There are going to be flaws in the system. I never claimed perfection. It just won't be as bad as the system that treats a rapist much better than a drug seller. Anyone here think that those were fair sentences?

 

Not just any diamond, the Hope diamond. You know, priceless. Eye for an eye would fail in this situation, because you'd basically give them a life sentence for a crime as simple as theft.

 

Wait... Do you think stealing the Hope Diamond is a petty crime or not?

 

EDIT: But I think I understand what you're saying. The cost of what you stole shouldn't be the main factor to take into account. It should moreso be the nature of the act (mitigating factors, such as "I was hungry so I stole this food for my family").

 

Eye for an eye would also force people to place a price on other's lives, some sort of human-currency conversion.

 

We already do. It's called doing your time.

[Bloodstain]

 

To try and stay on topic, an eye for an eye wouldn't work in theft scenarios. If a bum on the street with no wealth stole a newspaper and then destroyed it, how do you punish him accordingly?

 

That's not even something that would make it to courts/involve a charge, so nothing

Same bum steals the hope diamond, hides it, but gets caught and the diamond can't be found.

What's the equivalent punishment?

 

Unrealistic example.

 

 

 

 

Of course it's subjective, as is the current system.

 

Our current system has mandatory minimums, maximums, sentencing principles and rules, precedent (both horizontal and vertical), etc.

[Zierro]

So selling pills is objectively more malicious, immoral, detrimental than raping someone? The current system makes mistakes all the time, precedents change, judges and juries disagree with each other, mitigating factors are interpreted in so many different ways, etc. That implies extreme subjectivity.

[Bloodstain]

There really isn't as much subjectivity as you are implying. I'm from Canada, but I'm sure it's the same way in USA. The pills sentence is probably more for symbolic reasons, although you can argue that selling such a vast amount of pills COULD be worse than murder or rape. If you make enough pills available to people, you might cause more than one OD. Although I highly doubt that someone has gotten life for just selling pills, and with all this said I don't think the courts have enough subjective ability

[sees_all1]

Wait... Do you think stealing the Hope Diamond is a petty crime or not?

 

No, but I think theft can't be universally be translated into years. Stealing a priceless work of art from some entity like the Smithsonian is not the same as stealing the life/retirement savings of an individual. The priceless work of art has a much higher value placed on it than the life savings of an individual, but the amount of pain it causes is completely disproportionate.

[EarthySun]

What if something happens by accident, and they can't prove otherwise? Would they still be given a sentence, and if so, would their sentence be given accidentally?

[Bloodstain]

What if something happens by accident, and they can't prove otherwise? Would they still be given a sentence, and if so, would their sentence be given accidentally?

 

Rarely such thing as an accident. Usually negligence. That's why they call them car collisions now

[Zierro]

The pills sentence is probably more for symbolic reasons, although you can argue that selling such a vast amount of pills COULD be worse than murder or rape. If you make enough pills available to people, you might cause more than one OD.

 

The problem with this argument is that death-causing items are already commonly sold and even taxed by the government such as tobacco and cigarettes (making for a bad precedent). But just because there is a chance of someone dying from them shouldn't make it immoral to sell them. They consented to buying the pills, so I don't see how this is more immoral/detrimental than raping someone and more immoral/detrimental than mass-selling cigarettes.

 

No, but I think theft can't be universally be translated into years. Stealing a priceless work of art from some entity like the Smithsonian is not the same as stealing the life/retirement savings of an individual. The priceless work of art has a much higher value placed on it than the life savings of an individual, but the amount of pain it causes is completely disproportionate.

 

I agree. I must have edited this in after you've already read my post:

 

EDIT: But I think I understand what you're saying. The cost of what you stole shouldn't be the main factor to take into account. It should moreso be the nature of the act (mitigating factors, such as "I was hungry so I stole this food for my family").

[Bloodstain]

The problem with this argument is that death-causing items are already commonly sold and even taxed by the government such as tobacco and cigarettes (making for a bad precedent). But just because there is a chance of someone dying from them shouldn't make it immoral to sell them. They consented to buying the pills, so I don't see how this is more immoral/detrimental than raping someone but less immoral/detrimental than mass-selling cigarettes.

 

Drugs are a grey area, because really, they shouldn't be illegal. I'm just trying to defend it from our current system's point of view, but it's still pretty futile. Do you have a news article or something that has someone being sent away for life for selling pills?

[Zierro]

Drugs are a grey area, because really, they shouldn't be illegal. I'm just trying to defend it from our current system's point of view, but it's still pretty futile. Do you have a news article or something that has someone being sent away for life for selling pills?

 

I can't find a specific article regarding what I said, but I have found sites stating you can get up to life in prison for drug possession/trafficking: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

 

That being said, I have personally heard of someone going to court and witnessing a rapist getting a few year sentence and a pill seller getting life during the same court day. Maybe that specific story was not true, but the links prove it's very possible and it does reflect how backwards the current system is running.

 

---------------

 

As far as the death sentence arguments go, I've been doing my research.

 

Slippery slope argument. Would not necessarily happen, and is in fact unlikely to happen.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_McDuff#Broomstick_murders

 

Murderer sentenced to death gets out of jail because prisons were becoming too populated. Days after his release, he continues murdering people.

 

Preventative punishment has been shown to not work - areas where capital punishment is legal have equal, if not higher murder rates than places without capital punishment. I've given you statistics on this before, and you just ignored them.

 

Can you PROVE it's effective? No? So then I guess you're the one who firmly believes something silly like murdering people is supposed to keep crime down without even having ANY studies that come even near confirming it. What if I told you I could show studies where murders INCREASED in the month/months immediately following an execution? Would you change your belief or would you think of some other way to avoid bringing up counter evidence and trying your hardest to try to render the study invalid? Are you just going to plug your ears every time some brings you studies like you did last thread, and say "LALALALALALALALAL I CANT HEAR YOUUU".

 

Since we're all about the statistics here, it has also been shown to work:

 

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6802314.html

http://www.wesleylowe.com/cp.html#deter

 

During the temporary suspension on capital punishment from 1972-1976, researchers gathered murder statistics across the country. In 1960, there were 56 executions in the USA and 9,140 murders. By 1964, when there were only 15 executions, the number of murders had risen to 9,250. In 1969, there were no executions and 14,590 murders, and 1975, after six more years without executions, 20,510 murders occurred rising to 23,040 in 1980 after only two executions since 1976. In summary, between 1965 and 1980, the number of annual murders in the United States skyrocketed from 9,960 to 23,040, a 131 percent increase. The murder rate -- homicides per 100,000 persons -- doubled from 5.1 to 10.2. So the number of murders grew as the number of executions shrank. Researcher Karl Spence of Texas A&M University said:

 

"While some [death penalty] abolitionists try to face down the results of their disastrous experiment and still argue to the contrary, the...[data] concludes that a substantial deterrent effect has been observed...In six months, more Americans are murdered than have killed by execution in this entire century...Until we begin to fight crime in earnest [by using the death penalty], every person who dies at a criminal's hands is a victim of our inaction."

 

Notes Dudley Sharp of the criminal-justice reform group Justice For All:

 

"From 1995 to 2000," "executions averaged 71 per year, a 21,000 percent increase over the 1966-1980 period. The murder rate dropped from a high of 10.2 (per 100,000) in 1980 to 5.7 in 1999 -- a 44 percent reduction. The murder rate is now at its lowest level since 1966. "

 

 

The most striking protection of innocent life has been seen in Texas, which executes more murderers than any other state. According to JFA (Justice for All), the Texas murder rate in 1991 was 15.3 per 100,000. By 1999, it had fallen to 6.1 -- a drop of 60 percent. Within Texas, the most aggressive death penalty prosecutions are in Harris County (the Houston area). Since the resumption of executions in 1982, the annual number of Harris County murders has plummeted from 701 to 241 -- a 72 percent decrease

 

I'd be all for that except that because of the appeal processes, the cost of keeping someone in prison for life is actually less than sentencing them to death, and sometimes an execution costs more than twice as much.

 

The issue of saving lives should come before saving money. Also, there are cases where an execution would be cheaper than life in prison.

 

Anyway... this is why I don't like arguments of credibility and statistics. We all know how easily it can become a stalemate. I'd prefer if it came down to a battle of witty remarks: