Recently I have been involved in a discussion about the death penalty, particularly in relation to this case (http://www.chronicle-online.com/couey_trial/). The main point of difference between the proponents of the death penalty and myself is that they seem to espouse revenge as a valid reason to punish/hurt someone. For myself, I have never been able to justify revenge in any context, so just up and saying, "Couey's an evil murderer, he needs to die now!" is a fairly large break from my normal mindset. I, of course, can sympathize with the wish for revenge - I too think Couey is quite evil to do something as he did, and I feel for Lunsford's death just like everyone else. However, I just never can connect that "feeling" with "reason to execute." Apparently some people can.

So, in this discussion I have principally argued against one person, and eventually got to her core beliefs in the matter: Lunsford was an innocent girl, and whoever hurts innocent girls like that needs to die. There was no interest in any other options, such as life inprisonment, that would achieve the same ends of societal protection. She just wanted revenge - and I quote: "My motive is purely vengeance."

So, it seems to me, that in cases where the same end of protection can be achieved without punishment, than that punishment is persued only for vengeance - and I cannot justify vengeance as a moral good. I could even equate the desire for vengeance to Couey's desires at the time of his crime: Pure self-gratification. This, to me, is truly disturbing. I don't like it when I see otherwise good people acting like that. I don't like it at all.

Now I'm just curious: does anyone else know the way that some people are able to justify revenge? How is it that some people connect vengeance and moral action?

I oppose death penalty... Not because I think it is too severe punishent or
because I think human life is sacred or any crap like that... (In fact I would
propably give death for almost any robbery, homicide, rape... anything that
is normally punisheable by year or more in prison...)

IF ONLY there could be 100% certainty of guilt...

But there can NEVER be 100% certainty... And that is why I oppose death
penalty...

@AJL: You say you'd substitute the death penalty for just about any 1+ year prison sentence. Does it follow then that you oppose sentencing someone to 1 or more years of prison because you cannot have 100% certainty? If not, why do feel they are interchangable?

@AJL: You say you'd substitute the death penalty for just about any 1+ year prison sentence. Does it follow then that you oppose sentencing someone to 1 or more years of prison because you cannot have 100% certainty?

No...

The point was that I oppose death penalty because it is irrevocable...

Prison sentence is not...

The point was that I oppose death penalty because it is irrevocable...

So is imprisonment. The time you waste in prison, 1 year of your life or more, can never come back. Even if you are not guilty, you still lost time, time that you could have used to make your life better.

Now I'm just curious: does anyone else know the way that some people are able to justify revenge? How is it that some people connect vengeance and moral action? My own dime-store theory is that some people need vengeance a tool to help differentiate themselves from those that they judge. I think on some level everyone acknowledges (even if it isn't consciously) that we all come with the same hardware and software. Therefore, given a specific set of conditions, we are all capable of the most breathtaking acts of selflessness. Similarly, within a specific set of conditions, we are all equally capable of the most horrendous acts imaginable (also see: Abraham Lincoln, better angels).

I think most people immediately reject this idea. Coming into contact with such a story causes an automatic self-inventory. The knee-jerk response to such an inventory is to run the program called "That person is a sick . I would NEVER do something like that!". Since we can't circumvent this programming without great difficulty, the next best response is to eliminate the stimulus (i.e. kill them, lock them up forever and throw away the key, etc). In situations where this can't happen (for example, the creep is a historical figure, or lives within a different legal system, etc) we invent the concept of an afterlife, complete with judge and lake of fire to satisfy our sense of "justice".

To summarize, our "moral" sense of outrage and vengeance is the result of inefficient inventory/self-assessment software than runs on most people's brains. My 2 cents.

EDIT: For more about the psychology behind my argument, check out the Stanford Prison Experiment (the actual experiment, not the punk band) as well as in-group/out-group bias. Empirical evidence shows that it's very easy for us to cause or wish harm upon others when they are a "them" rather than an "us".

[Now I'm just curious: does anyone else know the way that some people are able to justify revenge? How is it that some people connect vengeance and moral action?

Freud and Nietczche actually provides good reasons why this would happen. For Freud, causing pain onto others is sasitfying the death instinct, and fufils our inner sadisit. For Freidech Nietczche, most of us are "slaves", following the herd, and we basically hate the "masters", those who are leading us and are 'better' than us. Since the slaves hates the master, they want to harm that master for what he is doing.

To me, vengence needs to be done because you and the criminal shares two different viewpoints and value systems. In the end, debate between, say, the Jedi and the Sith breaks down. So the Jedi wants to go and show the world that the Sith is wrong so he goes and tortues the Sith and harms the followers of the Sith. It's a "Might makes right" thing, and you can't argue with the results. (I used Sith to represent all evil, thought about using a specific example but decided it might just drive us into an arugment)

I suppose because the punishment can be canceled and the prisoner can receive compensation for their lost time. Death is obviously irrevocable.

I disagree with that, though. There are some cases where we're so absolutely certain about the guilt of the accused and their crimes are so heinous that giving them a trial is a mere formality. Nuremberg and Saddam Hussein are examples of this - some crimes, such as ones against humanity, are deserving of death. Punishments have to be at least somewhat proportional to the crime or obviously it isn't justice. And as far as proportionality goes letting tyrants and mass murderers off with a lethal injection is pretty merciful.

On this case, even if this guy gets sentenced to death it won't be an 'eye for an eye' justice. Being raped and then killed is obviously worse than simply being killed. Harsh as it sounds, having him executed can still reasonably be called justice. Revenge is only when the punishment exceeds the crime IMO. If someone has that as their motive that's fine, but as long as justice is carried out at the end I don't see much of a problem.

So is imprisonment. The time you waste in prison, 1 year of your life or more, can never come back. Even if you are not guilty, you still lost time, time that you could have used to make your life better.

Sure... You lose in prison too... But if you are found innocent and
you are set free there is a change you may still live long full life...

But if you are executed... Thats it then... You lost everything in a
blink... Even if you were found innocent immediately after you were
executed... Nothing can be done...

Sure... You lose in prison too... But if you are found innocent and
you are set free there is a change you may still live long full life...

But if you are executed... Thats it then... You lost everything in a
blink... Even if you were found innocent immediately after you were
executed... Nothing can be done...

Let makes death revocable then.

For example, I remember the cloning debalace when people are worried, "OMG! Someone might get Hitler's DNA and clone Hitler!" Of course, that is silly, even if they clone Hitler, it is the enviorment of the cloned Hitler that will decide what he will be...prehaps the cloned Hitler might become a liberal activist.

What it does mean however is that people are worried that dictators might be given a second chance at living. What if we do that? What if we allow for cloning? What if we have clone packs? After we kill someone, we automatically decant a second clone and have that person continue living. We can also upload the memories of that person whom we just killed, so that they would be, for all intents and purposes, the same person.

In other words, if we can easily revoke death, then would you be okay with the death peantly?

Like I said earlier I would support death penalty and I would support pretty low
threshold for it too IF it could truly be revocable...

--

If for example some kind of stasis systems like in many scifi movies and such
would exist where peoples could be kept indefinitely without need take care of
them, then I would propably support a "harsh line" system where there is no
normal prisons and criminals are strict divided into two groups...

1. Those who can be allowed to remain free (under observation... or something)

2. Those who can not be... And they are ALL put to stasis for the rest of their
natural lifetime... (or untill they are found innocent...)

Like I said earlier I would support death penalty and I would support
pretty low threshold for it too IF it could truly be revocable...
Seems inconsistent. As you said, you don't believe "life is sacred or crap like that" so why is there a need to have 100% proven guilt? If you get it wrong, oh well, shrug. It's not like it was sacred. Right?

Seems inconsistent. As you said, you don't believe "life is sacred or crap like that" so why is there a need to have 100% proven guilt? If you get it wrong, oh well, shrug. It's not like it was sacred. Right?

Because I AM here... I could be sentenced to death... ( I am INNOCENT! )
And there are peoples I think I propably care about more or less and I think
I might become upset if they would be executed...

^^^^
Wouldn't that be a case for a better trial system rather than a different method for punishment? Seems that you could still get thrown in jail, frozen in carbonite, etc erroneously, couldn't you?

EDIT: Also, I hate to "that" guy, but what does any of this have to do with SD's questions? ;)

^^^^
Wouldn't that be a case for a better trial system rather than a different method for punishment? Seems that you could still get thrown in jail, frozen in carbonite, etc erroneously, couldn't you?


There is no Perfect trial system... And I don't believe there can be either...

And so of course I could still get sentenced even though I am innocent...

But that "frozen in carbonite" sentence would practically be like revocable
death sentence... I think... Which I think would be better than normal jail
or death sentence...

Seems inconsistent. As you said, you don't believe "life is sacred or crap like that" so why is there a need to have 100% proven guilt? If you get it wrong, oh well, shrug. It's not like it was sacred. Right?

Well, it's more of "Life isn't sacred but we are doing harm to a person's happiness and ability to live, and that HAPPINESS and QUALITY OF LIFE is sacred. Not life." At least, that's what I'm getting at.

My view? People are going to die anyway. And if there is no God, they get to sleep peacefully and happily. So why in the world would we like to send them off to Heaven and a blissful sleep early? You are REWARDING the criminal for his crime, not punishing him. :)

There is no Perfect trial system... And I don't believe there can be either...

And so of course I could still get sentenced even though I am innocent...

But that "frozen in carbonite" sentence would practically be like revocable
death sentence... I think... Which I think would be better than normal jail
or death sentence... I didn't say "perfect", I said "better". :D
No system is perfect. There are always exceptions.

I still say that focusing on a better form of punishment (or system of consequenses) won't address the specific concerns that you raise.

To me, this idea is anathema. One wrong does not erase another, one death cannot reverse another, two wrongs will not make a right.

And even proportionate revenge is never enough. Revenge is an all-consuming hunger to inflict what has been inflicted ten, a hundred, a thousand-fold upon the one who inflicted to begin with. Feed it, attempt to satisfy it, and the hunger grows. Can it be satisfied? I believe not.

Revenge cannot be satisfied, and allows anger, hate, violence to grow within you, until it can override everything else.

So do I believe in satisfying revenge? Do I believe in retribution? No. And so I cannot believe in retributive punishment - it appeals to the destructive, primal nature of humanity, and is, in my opinion, barbaric.

So, what do you do? It seems wrong to lock him/her up and hand society the bill. Perhaps a frontal lobotomy, or should brain surgery advance far enough, a sort of "death of personality" (essentially reprogram him/her with a new identity and physical appearance). No doubt it will cost money, but by them maybe less than the current equivalent of $25K/yr till they die of natural causes or million plus bucks to execute him/her. What's the cost to salve one's conscience?

No mere monetary value can be placed upon human life, IMO.

Let makes death revocable then.Death is irrevocable. There's no way around that.

Cloning makes a copy of the individual cloned. Let's say I kill you. You're dead. Then I take the DNA and create a copy of you. You're still dead. The copy starts living, but you are still dead, not feeling anything, experiencing anything, or doing anything. Regardless of whether or not there's a copy of you which would act somewhat similar to you (not at all exactly like you, because we're shaped by our environment), you're dead when you're dead. As a side note, that's one reason why I never liked Star Trek. First they kill Picard, then they make a copy, and that's supposed to be telportation? It's no more telportation than me killing someone, sending the DNA sample to the States, and having the person cloned there. But back on topic...

'Carbonite'-freezing, 'lobotomy' et al are even more primitive than death penalty, if you ask me. They're both cruel punishments, especially lobotomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobotomy), even if performed in some modern, remotely civilized way.

Freezing someone is not a viable alternative either, as it's the same result as the death penalty in cases where the person is actually found irrevocably guilty and not found innocent at a later time.

Yes, death penalty is about revenge. Plain and simple. The executed individual is a human being and should not be subject to killing, even if he himself has taken another person's life. Let's leave killing to euthanasia of people who actually are goners, like Terri Schiavo or a terminally ill patient who does nothing but lie in a bed 24 hours a day in great pain, never to recover.

As for the deterrent effect, I do not support utilitarian thinking, so it's not a convincing argument to me.

So, what do you do? It seems wrong to lock him/her up and hand society the bill.Another argument against life-long sentences.

As for the deterrent effect, I do not support utilitarian thinking, so it's not a convincing argument to me.

Another argument against life-long sentences.

So, how do exactly do you propose to punish someone that commits heinous crimes? If you don't kill 'em or lock 'em away (and destroy the key), how do you propose to protect society from any future crimess by such charachters?

Another argument against life-long sentences.

I don't want to share my streets with someone who's raped and killed, especially in a heinous manner. I sure don't want to see John Couey back out on the streets so he can molest and kill another 9 year old. I think he's done more than enough damage to the child, her family, and society with that act. I don't really care that he has a drug problem and heavens knows what else in his psyche. The fact remains he killed a little girl, and he'd likely do something like it again if he were ever let out of prison.

There are some people who are truly malevolent, and society needs protection from their evil. Prison isn't just about punishing the bad guy, it's also about protecting society from further violence. If someone has proven they are destructive to society, they don't get to enjoy the benefits of being a part of society. If that means locking them up forever, then so be it. Criminals had the choice to commit the crime or not. They've earned the penalty for their behavior.

Cloning makes a copy of the individual cloned. Let's say I kill you. You're dead. Then I take the DNA and create a copy of you. You're still dead. The copy starts living, but you are still dead, not feeling anything, experiencing anything, or doing anything. Regardless of whether or not there's a copy of you which would act somewhat similar to you (not at all exactly like you, because we're shaped by our environment), you're dead when you're dead. As a side note, that's one reason why I never liked Star Trek. First they kill Picard, then they make a copy, and that's supposed to be telportation? It's no more telportation than me killing someone, sending the DNA sample to the States, and having the person cloned there. But back on topic...

The thing is, it's about Memory Transplants as well, not just the cloning.

If you are cloned and do not have the memory of your previous life, then you and the clone are different. But if you have the same memories, in essence, the same personality and the same thing that makes us have the same 'soul', then you are the same person according to Locke, and according to many people as well.

So, suppose we kill someone for the murder of a person. And then we place the memories of that person we killed into a new cloned body. Then that person, remembering all he has ever done, is the same person as the person who killed.

If we have some sort of "MemoMax" system by which we can transfer memories to other people, then we could easily make someone live forever, while his 'clones' would just die and die and die. This solution is actually quite appealing, altough it would be yet another strike against religion (How can you fear about Hell if you can theortically live forever?). It might ease the pain of a death peantly, as it would indeed be revokable.
---
...And, hm, prehaps deterrence doesn't really work after all. Why? Because deterrence only work if you can GET CAUGHT. Somehow, I have a feeling that if any murder get unsolved, the detterence effect is meaningless. Maybe we just need more funding to help make our police better, rather than arguing what punishment criminals we have already gotten...since, well, the criminals we have arrested, we have control over. We have no control over the criminals that are out of our reach.

Detterence also doesn't work for those truly devoted to his cause (how are we supposed to kill a dead body of a hijacker in 9/11?).

If you are cloned and do not have the memory of your previous life, then you and the clone are different. But if you have the same memories, in essence, the same personality and the same thing that makes us have the same 'soul', then you are the same person according to Locke, and according to many people as well.No. You are still a copy, and the original is still dead. If you're killed, then your consciousness won't magically jump into your copy when it's created. You are a goner.

As for how to punish murderers and rapists, I don't know. I'm all for jail sentences, but a life-long sentence is too harsh. As for 'sharing the streets with rapists and murderers', we always have and always will. We just don't know because rapists and murderers don't exactly wear identifying armbands.

I firmly believe that if certain measures are put in effect, we can release killers without having to fear them. Sure, the ones deemed untrustworthy should stay behind bars, but those deemed healthy should be given a second chance once their term in jail is served. I say keep the released convicts under surveillance, give them electronic foot-rings, and give them some strict restraining orders. If their second chance fails, fine, lock them up until they rot.

No. You are still a copy, and the original is still dead. If you're killed, then your consciousness won't magically jump into your copy when it's created. You are a goner.


You are still you, as long as the memory is transplanted from the dead person to the new clone, or "magically jumped" as you said. More technology is needed to see if this is even possible, but if it is, then what I say is plausible.

If you had two copies of yourself, which one is the real you? If one deserves punishment, then both deserve punishment. Why wouldn't you punish both?

Additionally, if you killed one copy, why would the other care about it? It certainly wouldn't be punishment for that one. Sorta defeats the purpose...

If you had two copies of yourself, which one is the real you? If one deserves punishment, then both deserve punishment. Why wouldn't you punish both?

Hm...if they both receive the same memories at the same time, and they both plot together their crimes, then they should both get punished. What I think of however is that there would be one copy, and after that copy get executed, the second one would be 'decanted'.

If two people, each starting out with the same memories, exist, it is possible that they may receive different experiences, and that their memories might drift apart. If so, they both become two different people, and the copy that committed the crime is different from the copy that did not commit the crime.

Additionally, if you killed one copy, why would the other care about it? It certainly wouldn't be punishment for that one. Sorta defeats the purpose...

Well, if the memories get transferred, then the person will get to remember that he was killed. If death is painful to that person, that would act as punishment. And if copies cost lots of money, then prehaps the second copy might feel some pain in the pocketbook...

Man...some of y'all could weigh in on the the Revan execution thread.

As for real life? I'm opposed to the death penalty. It's actually MORE expensive to fry the guy than to lock him up, some of the sick #&@^$ who do these crimes get a buzz off the noteriety of a public execution (see Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy), and DNA testing with other forensics have reversed enough "airtight" convictions to fill a bushel. Top it off with the fact it puts the US in the same company as China, Saudi Arabia, and the Sudan, causing diplomatic headaches for extradition.

Other reasons are the racial and economic disparities in its use. Someone who can't afford a slick lawyer, someone who hasn't much for education, a diminished IQ, or mental illness is definitely at a disadvantage. That, and there's plenty of data to back up the fact that a black man who kills a white person will get the chair faster than a white person killing a white person or a white person killing a black person (statically speaking). Then, there's the human frailty factor in tainted evidence, a DA or judge who's up for election and has to "look tough," and juries hand-selected by one of the sides in the case.

I'm all for the Death Penalty.

Look at Couey, for an example. He is a monster that needs and deserves to be put down. He is evil - and thus must be killed. If you let them live - it's like you're almost encouraging criminals to commit a monsterous crime such as the one he did. After all, you're not going to die. What does it matter?

But if he is executed like the sick and evil man he is, that will be justice. After doing what he did to the girl, he deserves the same thing done to him - an eye for an eye. And that needs to be done! It is injustice NOT to severely and painfully kill people like him.

In today's world there seems to be much more emphasis over the rehabilitation aspect of sentencing like probation or a drug rehab program. It is one of several solutions to deal with the issue with prison sentences. There is no doubt about it: we have too few prisons here in the states and crime is still pretty high. There have been various ways in which states have tried to issue out sentences that are reasonable much like playing mathematics.

With the death penalty, I would have to say that I prefer it. There are several things that really tick me off. The first and foremost are those perps who molest or sexually assault children. The second and third and so forth are blurred. Murdering someone for whatever reason is despicable. I would say that the death penalty is a good form of retribution in terms of the punishment fitting the crime. Unfortunately I would love to include the perps who do the unspeakable to kids but that could be constituted as cruel and unusual punishment as stated within the Bill of Rights.

In terms of the death penalty, it was outlawed once because it was constituted as cruel and unusual punishment. It was reintroduced in the 60's after Georgia remodified the Penal Code. Since then there are about 30-40 states that have the death penalty but there are some that don't use it like New York. Other states, like Texas have executed 340 prisoners since then out of 600 on death row. Nowadays, prisoners on death row can choose the mode of exceution which include the electric chair, lethal injection, the gas chamber and firing squads. The death penalty is based upon the philosophy of an eye for an eye, the retribution philosophy. While it is wrong to deny a person of life, the person who did such a thing is in no deservance of a life.

In today's world there seems to be much more emphasis over the rehabilitation aspect of sentencing like probation or a drug rehab program. It is one of several solutions to deal with the issue with prison sentences. There is no doubt about it: we have too few prisons here in the states and crime is still pretty high. There have been various ways in which states have tried to issue out sentences that are reasonable much like playing mathematics. Given the total death row population is somewhere around 3250, I doubt housing is a serious problem for this category of prisoner.

With the death penalty, I would have to say that I prefer it. There are several things that really tick me off. The first and foremost are those perps who molest or sexually assault children. The second and third and so forth are blurred. Murdering someone for whatever reason is despicable. I would say that the death penalty is a good form of retribution in terms of the punishment fitting the crime. Unfortunately I would love to include the perps who do the unspeakable to kids but that could be constituted as cruel and unusual punishment as stated within the Bill of Rights. Indeed, I agree with you about being ticked off and their crimes being despicable. You lose me right around the "good form of retribution" though. For you, what is it that justifies an act of (pure) retribution and makes it a moral good?

The death penalty is based upon the philosophy of an eye for an eye, the retribution philosophy. While it is wrong to deny a person of life, the person who did such a thing is in no deservance of a life.Do you believe that "eye for an eye" justifications are always good responses to crime? If not, then at what point does "eye for an eye" become a good philosophy, and why?

My whole problem being, of course, that when I feel the desire for vengeance, I'm not really all that concerned about whether something is justifiable. For me, it seems to boil down to "I'm going to take vengeance because I will feel better having done it." Yes, it may make me feel better, but I bet Couey felt nice when he killed too. What's the difference? I can't justify killing someone just because it makes me feel better. Is there something I'm missing here?

@JM12: And what happened to the new standard higher than the old, pray?

What, in fact, happened to 'thou shalt not kill'?

I think Samuel Dravis is right. Killing someone will just serve your sense of revenge. What is the difference for society if a criminal is locked up forever?

Besides, being locked up for your life, spending 23 hours a day alone is a terrible enough punishment. That could be the harshest penalty for mass murderers.

Indeed, I agree with you about being ticked off and their crimes being despicable. You lose me right around the "good form of retribution" though. For you, what is it that justifies an act of (pure) retribution and makes it a moral good?
I call it a good form in that it cobforms with the view I have about an eye for an eye. I don't call it a moral good but rather a justifiable good. It is wrong to take someone's life. That is a given with most people. I say it is justifiable because there are some people that death would be their just reward like the perps who sexually assualt, rape and kill their victims.


Do you believe that "eye for an eye" justifications are always good responses to crime? If not, then at what point does "eye for an eye" become a good philosophy, and why?
Not always. I do believe that the rehabilitation philosophy would work too. Drug rehab for those with drug offenses. Of course we run into the issue of the person staying clean and all but I am in favor of that as well.


My whole problem being, of course, that when I feel the desire for vengeance, I'm not really all that concerned about whether something is justifiable. For me, it seems to boil down to "I'm going to take vengeance because I will feel better having done it." Yes, it may make me feel better, but I bet Couey felt nice when he killed too. What's the difference? I can't justify killing someone just because it makes me feel better. Is there something I'm missing here?
Maybe you don't understand it because you haven't had someone you love murdered. For some people, if the perp is executed, they do get peace of mind. Maybe there is some vengeance in their but that depends on the person. I get revenge on my brother for playing tricks on me, does that make me a bad person?
I call the death penalyty justifiable because on a general consensus to deprive someone of life is wrong. It is justifiable when the the person in question deprives someone else of life. It is the same dilemma that cops face IAD over the question of whether a shooting was justifiable or not.

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
As for the deterrent effect, I do not support utilitarian thinking, so it's not a convincing argument to me.

Another argument against life-long sentences.


I firmly believe that if certain measures are put in effect, we can release killers
without having to fear them. Sure, the ones deemed untrustworthy should stay behind bars....and give them some strict restraining orders. If their second chance fails, fine, lock them up until they rot.

Sooooo.....you lose me here. If life-long sentences are a bad thing, then why do you have no problem with them for recidivists?

I call it a good form in that it cobforms with the view I have about an eye for an eye. I don't call it a moral good but rather a justifiable good. It is wrong to take someone's life. That is a given with most people. I say it is justifiable because there are some people that death would be their just reward like the perps who sexually assualt, rape and kill their victims.If it's not a moral good then why would we ever want to do it over other options?

I am interested in your view of what lawful punishment is supposed to be for. Is punishment done merely to cause suffering without purpose, or is it done to protect other innocents?

Not always. I do believe that the rehabilitation philosophy would work too. Drug rehab for those with drug offenses. Of course we run into the issue of the person staying clean and all but I am in favor of that as well.Well, what sort of crimes does it take to make using "eye for an eye" better than rehab/containment?

Maybe you don't understand it because you haven't had someone you love murdered. For some people, if the perp is executed, they do get peace of mind.I certainly hope I don't have that happen! I'm not sure how being angry and wanting closure really affects the morality of killing someone, however. Suppose someone finds their husband cheating on them. What sort of options for vengeance does being angry allow him that being calm did not? An excuse for doing something immoral - but if that's all it is, why shouldn't he be held responsible to follow the straight and narrow path?

I wouldn't count wanting closure as something worthy of killing someone over.

Maybe there is some vengeance in their but that depends on the person. I get revenge on my brother for playing tricks on me, does that make me a bad person?In relation to the unnecessary suffering caused - well, yes. Not very bad, mind (unless you're truly evil :p), but I can't say that getting back at him was a good thing to do.

I call the death penalyty justifiable because on a general consensus to deprive someone of life is wrong. It is justifiable when the the person in question deprives someone else of life.I'm not really interested in relativism. Why is it better to kill someone after the fact of their crime when it serves no other purpose than "feeling good/providing closure" and there are other viable options available?

It is the same dilemma that cops face IAD over the question of whether a shooting was justifiable or not.Depends on the shooting. If the cops were in a hot situation, then they might be justified by any number of scenarios, all of which involve immediate protection of lives - and none of which apply to the death penalty's situation, where the (no longer dangerous) perpetrator is deliberately killed.

If the cop captured a guy that had previously killed his buddy in a firefight, and executed him for that there would be...sticky ethical problems. The military has had this sort of situation in Iraq. The other day I heard that soldier beat a captured insurgent - badly - after he and his friends were shot at with sniper rifles. He even broke his hand doing it.

Justifiable? Ehh, he was angry, couldn't help himself, sure you can justify it all you like. Stupid snipers shouldn't have been shooting at our guys! They get what's coming to them. But wait, this was after the insurgent was captured and he apparently beat him up in cold blood. Oh.

Moral? No. There were other options available and he was wrong to do it. Just because someone else does something immoral does not mean you can do the same (essentially) right back to them and say it's good. The only way I can think of to justify doing so is protection of other people, but that's taken care of through the prisons. We no longer need to kill for protection, so I see precious little in favor of the death penalty, as a justifiable venture or moral choice.

Sam Dravis: I don't pretend to be a saint. Truly this does exemplify the complexity of the human mind. I believe that a punishment must fit the crime and I believe that leniency can be granted. It's that magnificent thing called mitigating and aggravating cirumstances.

Well, what sort of crimes does it take to make using "eye for an eye" better than rehab/containment?
I think murder is a crime that makes eye for an eye better. The fine details go into if the person is truly remorseful. If that happens, then life sentence.

There are some cases where we're so absolutely certain about the guilt of the accused and their crimes are so heinous that giving them a trial is a mere formality.That's interesting, who gets to decide that someone is so obviously guilty that they don't even really need a trial? At what point are we going to draw that line? Do we only allow the death penalty for those who we have this 100% no doubt about it certainty of guilt? And if so, again, how do we conclude 100% that somebody is guilty of a crime?

It was pointed out earlier in the thread that the number of 'criminals' who we were so sure of their guilt that we eventually found to be innocent is a pretty impressive number. Are you okay with the idea that we may end up killing innocent people just so we can get our revenge?

Maybe you don't understand it because you haven't had someone you love murdered.Maybe you don't understand because you haven't had someone you love who you know was innocent murdered by the judicial system that is supposed to protect us.

That's interesting, who gets to decide that someone is so obviously guilty that they don't even really need a trial? At what point are we going to draw that line? Do we only allow the death penalty for those who we have this 100% no doubt about it certainty of guilt? And if so, again, how do we conclude 100% that somebody is guilty of a crime?

It was pointed out earlier in the thread that the number of 'criminals' who we were so sure of their guilt that we eventually found to be innocent is a pretty impressive number. Are you okay with the idea that we may end up killing innocent people just so we can get our revenge?

Originally Posted by JediMaster12
Maybe you don't understand it because you haven't had someone you love murdered.

ET:Maybe you don't understand because you haven't had someone you love who you know was innocent murdered by the judicial system that is supposed to protect us.

This raises an interesting question. If we can't know "100%" that someone is guilty of a crime, how can we know that someone is 100% innocent either? Unless you're the alibi (but then ONLY you can claim to be 100% anything), that would seem to be very problematic as well. B/c, to what degree can the rest of us trust the claim of someone who claims they know someone is innocent, if it is only the alibi's claim we have to work with to presume "100%" innocense"?

I wouldn't necessarily you can know 100% either way unless you directly witnessed the events, though I honestly don't know how this relates to my argument...at all.

Should we start presuming guilty until proven innocent? Is that your implication?

Was curious how you could emotionaly argue to JM12 that someone could know (presumably 100%)that their innocent fill-in-the-blank was murdered by the state, yet somehow one's guilt cannot be determined 100% in your riposte to ED.

ET:That's interesting, who gets to decide that someone is so obviously guilty that they don't even really need a trial? At what point are we going to draw that line? Do we only allow the death penalty for those who we have this 100% no doubt about it certainty of guilt? And if so, again, how do we conclude 100% that somebody is guilty of a crime?

In your reply to me you acknowledge such culpability can be ascertained by eyewitnessing (directly or presumably via camera) the crime. Besides, when you read ED's statement, he's not suggesting "no trial" anyway. If I have sufficient credible information (tv footage of you commiting the crime and being properly identified as assailant), then a trial IS merely a formality in determining your guilt. At this point, the trial really only serves to observe the legal nicities (your legal rights) and proclaim sentence upon you.

Presumption of innocense does not equate actual innocense. That doesn't mean, as you seem to infer, that we jettison the concept across the board. I'm only curious as to how you can ever know someone is innocent if you were not an eyewitness to the crime they are accused of in the first place. Your reply to ED implies you believe him to be indiscriminate in his support of the death penalty, to JM12 that she's too insensitive. Also, how large is this pretty impressive number and how does it compare to the total number of the sentences carried out and still pending?

Sadly, though, it often does seem like guilty till proven innocent (regardless of the "alleged" crime in question).

Maybe you don't understand because you haven't had someone you love who you know was innocent murdered by the judicial system that is supposed to protect us.
Innocent as in bystander? I was the victim of a felony crime. I was a victim of an armed robbery. I had a gun pointed in my face and was told to get down on the ground. I stood toe to toe with the guy who robbed the store that I work at on the weekends while he yelled at me to turn around and get down. As far as I know, they never caught the guy. Oh I understand full well that the system isn't perfect. Don't tell me that ten times over.

Because of that I do think that sometimes the perps get off easy. I am just lucky that I am alive and that all the guy wanted was the money.

Don't tell me that ten times over.Well then I suppose it's good that I didn't even say that once. At all. In fact, I honestly haven't the foggiest idea what you or Totenkopf are arguing about, because you keep quoting my posts and then running off on some completely separate tangent. I don't even know how to reply to either of you, because you don't seem to be actually debating me.

All right folks, everyone take a deep breath. Relax. Re-read the Kavar's corner rules--they're different from other forums.

Those who've been victims of crimes, recognize that you may have a stronger response to some of this than non-victims. Those of you who have not been victims, be aware that those who have are going to be a lot more sensitive to this issue than you. Please try not to ratchet up the emotions.

First, ET, your stand on CP is fairly well established in these forums. You seem to suggest that there is no such thing as 100% assurance that someone is guilty of a crime (your post to ED). In your reply to JM12 you assert that she can't understand opposition to the DP b/c perhaps she has never experienced the pain of someone who knows (how?) that a loved one facing ececution/executed is/was innocent (I presume 100%). My question to you was simply that if you claim that we can't know someone was absolutely guilty, how can you (or anyone) be sure that your/their loved one was absolutely innocent.

Now, you can't argue that a trial will determine absolute guilt on it's own b/c you state that there are an impressive # (how many, btw) of people who have suffered a miscarriage of justice in the courtroom. So, if absolute guilt cannot be ascertained (except by eyewitnesses?), how can you claim that anyone knows that someone facing execution is actually not guilty? Frankly, loved ones will often experience pain if a family member/friend is executed regardless of their guilt. In essence, I've not gone off some wild tangent, just merely asked you to clarify your position. Thanks.