Capital Punishment: Right Or Wrong
Depot
The ModFather Join Date: 2002-11-09 Member: 7956Members
The ModFather Join Date: 2002-11-09 Member: 7956Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Is this the proper way to deter crime?</div> 38 states in the U.S currently have capital punishment. Is this the proper way to deter crime? Discuss ...
<a href='http://www.iep.utm.edu/c/capitalp.htm' target='_blank'>Capital Punishment</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Utilitarian Arguments Concerning Capital Punishment</span>
Perhaps the most common defenses of capital punishment are on utilitarian grounds. For utilitarians, punishment in general is justified only insofar as it creates a greater balance of happiness vs. unhappiness. From the utilitarian perspective, then, capital punishment is justified if it (1) prevents the criminal from repeating his crime; or (2) deters crime by discouraging would-be offenders. For, both of these contribute to a greater balance of happiness in society. There are several immediate problems with this line of reasoning. First, the burden of proof is on the defender of capital punishment to show that the same effects could not be accomplished with less severe punishment, such as life imprisonment. This is especially pertinent since the goal of utilitarianism is to reduce as much unhappiness as possible and this entails imposing the least severe of two possible punishments when everything else is equal. Italian political theorist Cesare Beccaria (1738-1794) argues this point in On Crimes and Punishment (1764), one of the first systematic critiques of capital punishment from the utilitarian point of view. According to Beccaria, capital punishment is not necessary to deter, and long term imprisonment is a more powerful deterrent since execution is transient.
A second and more basic problem with utilitarian defenses of capital punishment involves the fact gathering process. Since the utilitarian is making a factual claim about the beneficial social consequences of capital punishment, then his claim should be backed by empirical evidence. In the absence of such reliable empirical evidence, the utilitarian position must be dismissed, as is the case with any unverified factual claim. "Empirical evidence" in general is of two varieties: anecdotal evidence and scientific evidence. Anecdotal evidence involves isolated observations which appear to correlate two states of affairs, which, in this case, would be (a) capital punishment, and (b) improved social conditions. Given the gravity of the issue at stake with capital punishment, namely, people's lives, anecdotal evidence is an insufficient ground for establishing a causal connection between capital punishment and improved social conditions. Instead, scientific studies are needed. Several studies have been conducted in the past few decades regarding such a connection, but, unfortunately, the methodology used on social questions of this nature is necessarily imprecise. Ideally, a truly scientific study of the question would involve a comparison between two otherwise identical societies in which capital punishment was not used in the control group but was used in the test group. The problem, though, is that it is a practical impossibility to isolate two otherwise identical societies upon which to conduct the study. An almost endless variety of differing factors in the respective groups will make the results inconclusive. Not surprisingly, the recently conducted empirical studies in fact draw conflicting conclusions. This basic problem in the fact gathering process not only applies to the utilitarian defender of capital punishment, but also to the utilitarian critic of capital punishment who might, for example, argue that society benefits more from life imprisonment sentences.
A third problem with utilitarian justifications of punishment, as pointed out by contemporary political philosopher Adam Bedeau, concerns the ratio of innocent lives saved per execution. Perhaps, in the best possible situation, executing five of the most dangerous convicts will result in saving five innocent lives in the future. As the number of executions increases, however, the number of innocent lives saved will not increase proportionally. Eventually, it may take one thousand additional executions to save only one additional innocent life. So, eventually it must be determined how many executions justify the saving of one innocent life. This, though, is virtually impossible to determine, yet utilitarians need this information to successfully calculate the overall social benefit of capital punishment.
Finally, critics of capital punishment sometimes argue on utilitarian grounds that the expense involving executions is substantially greater than the cost of life imprisonment. The costs of appeals and legal counseling are the principal expenses. Thus, the extra financial burden of capital punishment contributes to a greater balance of unhappiness vs. happiness. There are three problems with this argument. First, such financial calculations typically do not take into account that much of the legal counseling for death row inmates is pro bono which does not cost the taxpayer. Second, even if this is a true description of the cost of capital punishment in the United States and other developed countries, it is not representative of the cost of criminal executions world wide. Indeed, one might reasonably expect that in many developing countries executions are substantially cheaper than life imprisonment costs. Assuming that critics of capital punishment object to its practice in any country, this argument not only lacks universal application, but might in fact be used as an argument in favor of capital punishment in countries with less expensive appeals processes. Finally, even if executing criminals is more costly than life imprisonment, it is not immediately obvious that the extra expense either contributes to a greater balance of social unhappiness or even tips the balance towards unhappiness. Society may actually be pleased with, or at least content with, the value it is getting for its capital punishment dollar.
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Retributive Arguments Concerning Capital Punishment</span>
The retributive notion of punishment in general is that (a) as a foundational matter of justice, criminals deserve punishment, and (b) punishment should be equal to the harm done. In determining what counts as "punishment equal to harm," theorists further distinguish between two types of retributive punishment. First, lex talionis retribution involves punishment in kind and is commonly expressed in the expression "an eye for an eye." Second, lex salica retribution involves punishment through compensation, and the harm inflicted can be repaired by payment or atonement. Historically, capital punishment is most often associated lex talionis retribution. One of the most early written statements of capital punishment from the lex talionis or "eye for an eye" perspective is from the 18th century BCE Babylonian Law of Hammurabi:
If a builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built falls in and kills its owner, then that builder shall be put to death. If it kills the son of the owner, then the son of that builder shall be put to death.
Critics of classic lex talionis-oriented capital punishment point out several problems with this view. First, as a practical matter, lex talionis retribution cannot be uniformly applied to every harm committed. The second sentence in the above quote from the Law of Hammurabi shows the inherent absurdity of consistent application: "If it [i.e., a collapsed house] kills the son of the owner, then the son of the builder shall be put to death." Second, as a strict formula of retribution, lex talionis punishment may even be inadequate. For example, if a terrorist or mass murderer kills ten people, then taking his single life is technically not punishment in kind. Third, foundational beliefs in general have the unfortunate consequence of appearing arbitrary. If a belief in lex talionis retribution is foundational, then, by definition, it cannot be defended by appealing to a prior set of reasons. The arbitrary nature of this is particularly clear when we see that there is an alternative retributive view of punishment which is equally foundational, yet which does not require capital punishment, namely lex salica retribution. Finally, critics of capital punishment argue that the true basis of retributive justifications of capital punishment is not at all foundational, but instead rooted in psychological feelings of vengeance. Even if we grant that vengeance is a natural human emotion, critics argue that it is an impulse which should be tempered, just as we do natural feelings of fear, lust, and greed. Laws about punishment, then, should not be grounded in our extreme feelings, but should instead be based on our more tempered ones. When we moderate our natural feelings of vengeance, there should be little inclination to execute criminals.
Immanual Kant offered an alternative retributive justification of capital punishment which is not rooted in vengeance. Instead, for Kant, capital punishment is based on the idea that every person is a valuable and worthy of respect because of their ability to make rational and free choices. The murder, too, is worthy of respect; we, thus, show him respect by treating him the same way he declares that people are to be treated. Accordingly, we execute the murderer. A key problem with Kant's justification of capital punishment is that it tells us what to do with only ideally rational killers, although many killers are not rational.
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Other Arguments for Capital Punishment</span>
Some standard arguments for capital punishment do not fall neatly into either the retributive or utilitarian categories. For example, John Locke's famous defense of capital punishment has both a retributive and utilitarian component. Locke argued that a person forfeits his rights when committing even minor crimes. Once rights are forfeited, Locke justifies punishment for two reasons: (1) from the retributive side, criminals deserve punishment, and, (2) from the utilitarian side, punishment is needed to protect our society by deterring crime through example. Thus, society may punish the criminal any way it deems necessary so to set an example for other would-be criminals. This includes taking away his life. Under the influence of Locke's theory of the forfeiture of rights, English law had some 200 capital offenses by 1800. Critics of Locke argue that there are alternatives to his assumption that criminals forfeit their right to life. It may be, instead, that criminals forfeit other rights (such as freedom to travel), yet the right to life is simply not forfeitable. Beccaria, for example, argued that people did not sacrifice their rights to life when entering into the social contract.
Another defense of capital punishment is based on an analogy that capital punishment is to the political body just as self-defense is to the individual. The reasoning is that, in dangerous circumstances, the individual is justified in protecting himself by self-defense with deadly force. Since society (or the political body) is like a large person, society, too, is justified in using deadly force through capital punishment. However, for this analogy to be a successful, it must parallel the accepted principle that self-defense with deadly force is justified only when there is no alternative open to us (such as fleeing). This means we must see whether any alternative to capital punishment is open (such as long term imprisonment). Further, the self-defense with deadly force is grounded in the moral right of self-preservation. However, only people, properly speaking, have moral rights; abstract entities and institutions such as governing bodies do not. Consequently, the analogy between capital punishment and self-defense fails it a basic level.
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Direct Attacks on Capital Punishment</span>
As noted, most arguments against capital punishment are based on exposing flaws in defenses of capital punishment. However, some are more direct attacks, such as that capital punishment should be abolished since it is undignified, inhumane, or contrary to love. Corporal punishment, such as flogging, and extreme types of capital punishment, such as burning at the stake, are no longer accepted practices because of their indignity. By parity of reasoning, capital punishment should be abolished too. However, even if we grant that capital punishment violates our duty to treat people with dignity, humanity, and love, that alone may not be a sufficient reason for abolishing the practice. Dignity, humanity and love are foundational moral goods and as such are prima facie in nature. That is, they are each morally binding on face value until a stronger duty emerges with which it conflicts, thereby creating a moral dilemma. Defenders of capital punishment argue that retributive justice is one such conflicting duty. For, even though we are duty bound to acknowledge a criminal's dignity, the duty of retribution is also present and is in fact outweighs the other duties.
A second direct attack on the practice of capital punishment is that, at least at present, it is virtually impossible to apply death sentences fairly. People on death row are typically poor and thus could not afford the best defense at their initial trial. They are also predominately Afro-American or Hispanic which raises larger issues of racial inequality in the US. As ethnic minorities, they are also likely to receive more strict judgments from juries than their white counterparts who commit the same crime. These considerations recently prompted a US Supreme Court Justice to change his own views on capital punishment and reject the practice. In addition to problems of class bias, the practice of capital punishment is further tainted by the tragic fact that innocent people are sometimes executed. Eliminating capital punishment not only prevents their wrongful execution, but gives them more time to to clear their names and return to society. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.iep.utm.edu/c/capitalp.htm' target='_blank'>Capital Punishment</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Utilitarian Arguments Concerning Capital Punishment</span>
Perhaps the most common defenses of capital punishment are on utilitarian grounds. For utilitarians, punishment in general is justified only insofar as it creates a greater balance of happiness vs. unhappiness. From the utilitarian perspective, then, capital punishment is justified if it (1) prevents the criminal from repeating his crime; or (2) deters crime by discouraging would-be offenders. For, both of these contribute to a greater balance of happiness in society. There are several immediate problems with this line of reasoning. First, the burden of proof is on the defender of capital punishment to show that the same effects could not be accomplished with less severe punishment, such as life imprisonment. This is especially pertinent since the goal of utilitarianism is to reduce as much unhappiness as possible and this entails imposing the least severe of two possible punishments when everything else is equal. Italian political theorist Cesare Beccaria (1738-1794) argues this point in On Crimes and Punishment (1764), one of the first systematic critiques of capital punishment from the utilitarian point of view. According to Beccaria, capital punishment is not necessary to deter, and long term imprisonment is a more powerful deterrent since execution is transient.
A second and more basic problem with utilitarian defenses of capital punishment involves the fact gathering process. Since the utilitarian is making a factual claim about the beneficial social consequences of capital punishment, then his claim should be backed by empirical evidence. In the absence of such reliable empirical evidence, the utilitarian position must be dismissed, as is the case with any unverified factual claim. "Empirical evidence" in general is of two varieties: anecdotal evidence and scientific evidence. Anecdotal evidence involves isolated observations which appear to correlate two states of affairs, which, in this case, would be (a) capital punishment, and (b) improved social conditions. Given the gravity of the issue at stake with capital punishment, namely, people's lives, anecdotal evidence is an insufficient ground for establishing a causal connection between capital punishment and improved social conditions. Instead, scientific studies are needed. Several studies have been conducted in the past few decades regarding such a connection, but, unfortunately, the methodology used on social questions of this nature is necessarily imprecise. Ideally, a truly scientific study of the question would involve a comparison between two otherwise identical societies in which capital punishment was not used in the control group but was used in the test group. The problem, though, is that it is a practical impossibility to isolate two otherwise identical societies upon which to conduct the study. An almost endless variety of differing factors in the respective groups will make the results inconclusive. Not surprisingly, the recently conducted empirical studies in fact draw conflicting conclusions. This basic problem in the fact gathering process not only applies to the utilitarian defender of capital punishment, but also to the utilitarian critic of capital punishment who might, for example, argue that society benefits more from life imprisonment sentences.
A third problem with utilitarian justifications of punishment, as pointed out by contemporary political philosopher Adam Bedeau, concerns the ratio of innocent lives saved per execution. Perhaps, in the best possible situation, executing five of the most dangerous convicts will result in saving five innocent lives in the future. As the number of executions increases, however, the number of innocent lives saved will not increase proportionally. Eventually, it may take one thousand additional executions to save only one additional innocent life. So, eventually it must be determined how many executions justify the saving of one innocent life. This, though, is virtually impossible to determine, yet utilitarians need this information to successfully calculate the overall social benefit of capital punishment.
Finally, critics of capital punishment sometimes argue on utilitarian grounds that the expense involving executions is substantially greater than the cost of life imprisonment. The costs of appeals and legal counseling are the principal expenses. Thus, the extra financial burden of capital punishment contributes to a greater balance of unhappiness vs. happiness. There are three problems with this argument. First, such financial calculations typically do not take into account that much of the legal counseling for death row inmates is pro bono which does not cost the taxpayer. Second, even if this is a true description of the cost of capital punishment in the United States and other developed countries, it is not representative of the cost of criminal executions world wide. Indeed, one might reasonably expect that in many developing countries executions are substantially cheaper than life imprisonment costs. Assuming that critics of capital punishment object to its practice in any country, this argument not only lacks universal application, but might in fact be used as an argument in favor of capital punishment in countries with less expensive appeals processes. Finally, even if executing criminals is more costly than life imprisonment, it is not immediately obvious that the extra expense either contributes to a greater balance of social unhappiness or even tips the balance towards unhappiness. Society may actually be pleased with, or at least content with, the value it is getting for its capital punishment dollar.
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Retributive Arguments Concerning Capital Punishment</span>
The retributive notion of punishment in general is that (a) as a foundational matter of justice, criminals deserve punishment, and (b) punishment should be equal to the harm done. In determining what counts as "punishment equal to harm," theorists further distinguish between two types of retributive punishment. First, lex talionis retribution involves punishment in kind and is commonly expressed in the expression "an eye for an eye." Second, lex salica retribution involves punishment through compensation, and the harm inflicted can be repaired by payment or atonement. Historically, capital punishment is most often associated lex talionis retribution. One of the most early written statements of capital punishment from the lex talionis or "eye for an eye" perspective is from the 18th century BCE Babylonian Law of Hammurabi:
If a builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built falls in and kills its owner, then that builder shall be put to death. If it kills the son of the owner, then the son of that builder shall be put to death.
Critics of classic lex talionis-oriented capital punishment point out several problems with this view. First, as a practical matter, lex talionis retribution cannot be uniformly applied to every harm committed. The second sentence in the above quote from the Law of Hammurabi shows the inherent absurdity of consistent application: "If it [i.e., a collapsed house] kills the son of the owner, then the son of the builder shall be put to death." Second, as a strict formula of retribution, lex talionis punishment may even be inadequate. For example, if a terrorist or mass murderer kills ten people, then taking his single life is technically not punishment in kind. Third, foundational beliefs in general have the unfortunate consequence of appearing arbitrary. If a belief in lex talionis retribution is foundational, then, by definition, it cannot be defended by appealing to a prior set of reasons. The arbitrary nature of this is particularly clear when we see that there is an alternative retributive view of punishment which is equally foundational, yet which does not require capital punishment, namely lex salica retribution. Finally, critics of capital punishment argue that the true basis of retributive justifications of capital punishment is not at all foundational, but instead rooted in psychological feelings of vengeance. Even if we grant that vengeance is a natural human emotion, critics argue that it is an impulse which should be tempered, just as we do natural feelings of fear, lust, and greed. Laws about punishment, then, should not be grounded in our extreme feelings, but should instead be based on our more tempered ones. When we moderate our natural feelings of vengeance, there should be little inclination to execute criminals.
Immanual Kant offered an alternative retributive justification of capital punishment which is not rooted in vengeance. Instead, for Kant, capital punishment is based on the idea that every person is a valuable and worthy of respect because of their ability to make rational and free choices. The murder, too, is worthy of respect; we, thus, show him respect by treating him the same way he declares that people are to be treated. Accordingly, we execute the murderer. A key problem with Kant's justification of capital punishment is that it tells us what to do with only ideally rational killers, although many killers are not rational.
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Other Arguments for Capital Punishment</span>
Some standard arguments for capital punishment do not fall neatly into either the retributive or utilitarian categories. For example, John Locke's famous defense of capital punishment has both a retributive and utilitarian component. Locke argued that a person forfeits his rights when committing even minor crimes. Once rights are forfeited, Locke justifies punishment for two reasons: (1) from the retributive side, criminals deserve punishment, and, (2) from the utilitarian side, punishment is needed to protect our society by deterring crime through example. Thus, society may punish the criminal any way it deems necessary so to set an example for other would-be criminals. This includes taking away his life. Under the influence of Locke's theory of the forfeiture of rights, English law had some 200 capital offenses by 1800. Critics of Locke argue that there are alternatives to his assumption that criminals forfeit their right to life. It may be, instead, that criminals forfeit other rights (such as freedom to travel), yet the right to life is simply not forfeitable. Beccaria, for example, argued that people did not sacrifice their rights to life when entering into the social contract.
Another defense of capital punishment is based on an analogy that capital punishment is to the political body just as self-defense is to the individual. The reasoning is that, in dangerous circumstances, the individual is justified in protecting himself by self-defense with deadly force. Since society (or the political body) is like a large person, society, too, is justified in using deadly force through capital punishment. However, for this analogy to be a successful, it must parallel the accepted principle that self-defense with deadly force is justified only when there is no alternative open to us (such as fleeing). This means we must see whether any alternative to capital punishment is open (such as long term imprisonment). Further, the self-defense with deadly force is grounded in the moral right of self-preservation. However, only people, properly speaking, have moral rights; abstract entities and institutions such as governing bodies do not. Consequently, the analogy between capital punishment and self-defense fails it a basic level.
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Direct Attacks on Capital Punishment</span>
As noted, most arguments against capital punishment are based on exposing flaws in defenses of capital punishment. However, some are more direct attacks, such as that capital punishment should be abolished since it is undignified, inhumane, or contrary to love. Corporal punishment, such as flogging, and extreme types of capital punishment, such as burning at the stake, are no longer accepted practices because of their indignity. By parity of reasoning, capital punishment should be abolished too. However, even if we grant that capital punishment violates our duty to treat people with dignity, humanity, and love, that alone may not be a sufficient reason for abolishing the practice. Dignity, humanity and love are foundational moral goods and as such are prima facie in nature. That is, they are each morally binding on face value until a stronger duty emerges with which it conflicts, thereby creating a moral dilemma. Defenders of capital punishment argue that retributive justice is one such conflicting duty. For, even though we are duty bound to acknowledge a criminal's dignity, the duty of retribution is also present and is in fact outweighs the other duties.
A second direct attack on the practice of capital punishment is that, at least at present, it is virtually impossible to apply death sentences fairly. People on death row are typically poor and thus could not afford the best defense at their initial trial. They are also predominately Afro-American or Hispanic which raises larger issues of racial inequality in the US. As ethnic minorities, they are also likely to receive more strict judgments from juries than their white counterparts who commit the same crime. These considerations recently prompted a US Supreme Court Justice to change his own views on capital punishment and reject the practice. In addition to problems of class bias, the practice of capital punishment is further tainted by the tragic fact that innocent people are sometimes executed. Eliminating capital punishment not only prevents their wrongful execution, but gives them more time to to clear their names and return to society. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Comments
As a deterent, I think it fails. Many murders have died via capital punishment, and there are still murders. It doesn't work. People aren't going to "not" commit a crime because they are worried about the concequences. They already don't care about the concequences, so they commit crimes.
Concerning the last argument presented - that capital punishment should be outlawed on racial grounds (more black/hispanics conviced than whites) - that is utter crap. Blaming the system or the lack of funds is not the issue here.
I am a firm believer that there aren't that many cases of people getting death row sentences when they didn't do the crime. It just doesn't happen that often (not often enough to warrent abolition of capital punishment - as is being argued). As a result - it doesn't matter if more black people are on death row than white. Whoever is there deserves it (999 times out of 100 - or whatever the number is). Skin color has nothing to do with the punishment. Wealth has nothing to do with the punishment. If the court of law finds you guilty and deserving... then you are guilty and deserving.
that's all I got for now.
If wrongfully putting someone to death is the biggest issue... DNA analyzing, many witnesses, or survalience footage could be required before putting someone to death. (of course the states would decide what is needed).
Texas has this rule where if 3 or more people saw what you did wrong (wrong enough for the death penelty obviously) you go right up to the front of the line. I like that. if you 100% did the crime, you should pay for what you did. Fast. None of this "sit in deathrow for years" bullsh#@. To me that seems more humane then to let them rott in prison with no hope of doing anything with thier lives barring escape.
As for deciding what warrents the deathpenelty... thats almost another topic.
Yes.
<a href='http://50.1911encyclopedia.org/C/CA/CAPITAL_PUNISHMENT.htm' target='_blank'>quickly linky</a>
pros: criminal dies, and the victims family/friends/relatives may become pleased, sort of like their own little revenge.
also in Denmark we have an extreme need for space in prisons, and a dead guy dont take up space nor resources.
cons: a death sentence may be the easier way out, whats worse? dying or sitting in prison for the rest of your life?
i have never been in prison but i think its pretty not funny <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&::onos::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tiny.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tiny.gif' /><!--endemo-->
also it should NEVER be nessersary to take a persons life, if someone kills and you kill that person you are just as bad as that person
Pretty much every modern nation has a problem with full prisons, BUT filled with minor drug offenders (possession of hashish) while those who really deserve to be there are running around and keepin the gear in motion.
So we come to the dilemma: is it okay to say "yeah kill everyone who's in prison" when there are actually youngsters kept in because someone stashed a bag of hemp in their mattress some night and they themselves haven't even touched it? Sure it would bring room for more of the same kind but it's not like they are any subhuman deserved to be treated without any rights. Also in many cases those in the death row are still kept under investigation as there is no complete proof that they actually have committed crimes that penalties capital punishment.
Eye for an eye maybe a comfort for the victim but doesn't really serve a good basis for criminal law...
Sorry if I went to random rambling, didn't mean to at least.
Our rate of accuracy in putting people to death is actually pretty good--its really rare for an innocent man to be put to death. In fact, I get the impression that basically, the bigger the crime, the harder it is to be convicted of it. IE, someone who actually murdered someone has a pretty good chance of getting off, while someone who goes to court for a traffic ticket is almost certainly going to be convicted even if he's actually innocent. (Barring lost paperwork...)
I draw my reasons from both utilitarian and retributive stances. When a criminal takes the life of others, society has a right to impose justice by taking his life. That doesn't mean justice can never be tempered by mercy, but justice has to exist as a baseline. You can't show mercy to a repentent murderer by commuting his sentence to life if you never had the option of a death sentence to begin with. And the hardened serial killer without a hint of remorse deserves nothing less than execution.
I was called to jury duty some time ago, and I was almost picked to sit on a Capital Murder trial, where the accused could recieve the Death penalty. They DO take the Death penalty very seriously.
Guess Im fetching way too far away and just pondering.
MOST states are trying to abolish the death sentence... Texas is putting in an express lane!
At least, according to a set of new Death Sentence laws I've read *shrugs*
In its current form however, I do not think it is a deterrent to OTHER people not to commit horrible acts, no. It's too sterile, too removed. Certainly the one being put to death will Never Ever Ever break the rules again, but to everyone else...how many executions have you heard of lately? How many have you seen? The "deterrent" of CP is the horror of someone being put to death. But reading a headline isn't horrific in a basic sense.
Read about a massacre in Africa, you say "Well, oh thats horrible." and finish off your coffee and head out the door for work. Heading out the door and seeing someone hanging from a treebranch by thier own entrails and "Well, oh thats horrible." suddenly takes on a whole new meaning.
...On the other hand, the shock effect of seeing things like that dwindles rapidly and society as a whole may not be better off.
if someone is a threat to the society then lock them away and give them a phychiatrist.
the victims relatives and friends need help after an experience like that, not more blood. and if they are asking for it.. well, thats almost as disgusting as cold-blooded murder.
if someone is a threat to the society then lock them away and give them a phychiatrist.
the victims relatives and friends need help after an experience like that, not more blood. and if they are asking for it.. well, thats almost as disgusting as cold-blooded murder. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
What about "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth"? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
if someone is a threat to the society then lock them away and give them a phychiatrist.
the victims relatives and friends need help after an experience like that, not more blood. and if they are asking for it.. well, thats almost as disgusting as cold-blooded murder. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What about "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth"? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
thats a 4000 year old "law", back from when the human race was starting its ascension into civilization.
if someone is a threat to the society then lock them away and give them a phychiatrist.
the victims relatives and friends need help after an experience like that, not more blood. and if they are asking for it.. well, thats almost as disgusting as cold-blooded murder. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What about "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth"? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
thats a 4000 year old "law", back from when the human race was starting its ascension into civilization. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
And I do believe you'll find references to it in the Bible. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
if someone is a threat to the society then lock them away and give them a phychiatrist.
the victims relatives and friends need help after an experience like that, not more blood. and if they are asking for it.. well, thats almost as disgusting as cold-blooded murder. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What about "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth"? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
thats a 4000 year old "law", back from when the human race was starting its ascension into civilization. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And I do believe you'll find references to it in the Bible. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
the bible is a big book of moral teachings (some of them valid these days, others not) and fairy tales.
besides the bible is pretty split up between old testament and the "eye for an eye etc" mentality and the new t, with jesus and his mission to save mankind with the power of love
sorry i got carried away, anyways the bible isnt the one book from which everyone should live off, altho sadly many seem to do.
edit: im going to bed btw, its 2:30am
if someone is a threat to the society then lock them away and give them a phychiatrist.
the victims relatives and friends need help after an experience like that, not more blood. and if they are asking for it.. well, thats almost as disgusting as cold-blooded murder. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What about "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth"? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
thats a 4000 year old "law", back from when the human race was starting its ascension into civilization. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And I do believe you'll find references to it in the Bible. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
the bible is a big book of moral teachings (some of them valid these days, others not) and fairy tales.
besides the bible is pretty split up between old testament and the "eye for an eye etc" mentality and the new t, with jesus and his mission to save mankind with the power of love
sorry i got carried away, anyways the bible isnt the one book from which everyone should live off, altho sadly many seem to do.
edit: im going to bed btw, its 2:30am <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
yeah like, WTH is up with that?
one part say: kill them
the other part say: love em
<a href='http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=2&chapter=21&version=31' target='_blank'>http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_i...r=21&version=31</a>
This was a time when the Israelits were being brought out of the land of Egypt - on their journey to Caanan. They were a nomadic people at this time, mostly made up of families traveling with their cattle. They had tents for homes.
All this to say - in any large group of people - even God's people - there will be crime. As a result - there needed to be laws to provide a guidance for punishment. Also, since there weren't jails, and building a jail was an imposibility, you needed to provide punishments that were "mobile" so to speak. Enfoced servitude / slavery and capital punishment fit the bill quite well.
The eye for eye portion speaks specifically if two men are fighting. Supposing one man beats the living crap out of the other (supposing the other is unable to continue fighting) then the court gets to exact punishment equilvilant to what was dished out. For instance, you and a neighbor fight, and you knock him out - then proceed to poke out his eye... the court would poke out your eye for justice.
As to why there are differnces in the message from before christ to after christ... I'll try to hit that in another post if people are interested.
As to why there are differnces in the message from before christ to after christ... I'll try to hit that in another post if people are interested.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is quite simple really, the people who wrote the old testament were long dead before the new testatment people even began.
Not to mention other myths and legends influenced the old testament besides the "history" itself. Evidenced by the Noah's Ark, Adam and Eve, and Sodom.
I said nothing of dellusions of any christian(s). Stop assuming I was even referring to that. I was addressing Pepe's statement.
I didn't have to assume anything. You put it quite clearly right here.
In the case of murder? Yes.
In other cases? Not really. Executing someone for theft or embezzlement is a bit much (cutting off their hands should deter them <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> ). But in the case of someone like a serial rapist or a confidence man, I'd have no problem giving them the noose.
That's a pretty extreme view on the subject. It's up to man to sort them out while they're alive.
In the case of murder? Yes.
In other cases? Not really. Executing someone for theft or embezzlement is a bit much (cutting off their hands should deter them <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> ). But in the case of someone like a serial rapist or a confidence man, I'd have no problem giving them the noose. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I like the use of confidence man here, so I'm going to pick on it for a while. Severe and extended cons are one of the areas where we often want capital punishment, but it is fairly rare. We seem to intuitively judge someone who interacts with us and forms a relationship soley for the purpose of theft more seriously than someone who just lifts our wallet in a crowd. A few more "would capital punishment be right for"'s, especially in combination: major theft (monetary and/or personal value), treason, torture, rape, murder. And repeats of all of the above. How about repeats *after* serving prison time for a first offence?
Noticing nobody mentions treason, and yet it remains the only crime punishable by death in some countries.
And Cxwf, not to restart your argument with Cyndane or anything, but:
God spoke to his scribes and guided their hands, so that they would write only His words. Their words were written so they would understand them, and their children, and their children's children, and follow His way. The more you understand of the world in which they lived, the better you will understand His words, and the closer you will be to God. If you happen to not presuppose the literal and maintained truth of the entire biblical series, it would also shed light on the people who may have seen fit to color or alter God's words, whether intentionally or not.
So whether or not you appreciate Cyandane's tone, or beliefs, take a minute to learn what you can. Wisdom can appear in the most unexpected places, and with the most unwilling bearers.
(And yes, an unwilling bearer at the moment is me: being up writing philisophical dribble at the crack of dawn because I can't sleep.)
Chris
<i>Previous statement infers that since there was a large gap between the writings of the new and old testament one can conclude they would be quite a bit different in their teachings since that whole, 1,700 had passed yrs since the OT was written. Following lists examples of said stories/thoughts and etc. </i>
Not to mention other myths and legends influenced the old testament besides the "history" itself. Evidenced by the Noah's Ark, Adam and Eve, and Sodom.
<i>Supporting statements.</i> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't like having to explain what I mean unless it is very clearly not stated well. (Which is not the case, this time.)
You have a bad habit of ignoring everything that I type and focus on a single issue, cxwf. I will not drag this off topic any further, if you need clarification, consult an english dictionary, or perhaps a comprehension book. I know they have both types of books at a library.
I am quoting myself because... I can. (With explanations in italics, yay.)
Thats all I wanted to hear. I could respond to your accusations, but there is no benefit of arguing that here, so I'll drop it.