The Death Penality, Old Age, Denial and Lifer Violence

[Junghalli]

A point that just occurred to me is that arguments along the lines of 'they'll never be released, they're a risk to others, and they're dead weight on society' should apply equally well to maintaining all the unfree mentally infirm, all the way from retarded children up to the demented elderly. Might as well just knock them all off, right?

Well, there is the arguments that

1) Those people have done nothing to deserve death, arguably murderers have. It's the murderer's own fault for being a murderer, a retarded or disabled person never chose to be that way.

2) Those people for the most part are not dangerous to others in the way that murderers are.

I'm not sure the two are really comparable.

[K. A. Pital]

Winston Blake, you're comparing dangerous elements of society such as rapists, murderers and child rapists and murderers to mentally or physically disabled harmless people?

[salm]

First, If your prison sentences can add up to over a hundred years you can be sentences to death

While i don´t agree with you that life in prison equals the death penalty you´re also factually wrong when saying this. There are countris where crimes don´t add up. In Germany for example you can commit 100000 robberies and get the max sentance of 15 years because you serve all 100000 robberies in the same 15 years.

[Knife]

If you must know, it springs my religion and the idea that life is precious and not to be idly wasted or taken. I do not, however, wish to make this into a religious debate.

That's fine if it's your moral religious stance, however going back to the 'morals come from society' thinking, yes society needs it's people to function therefore killing people in it is bad, hence everyone should have the basic right to live. However, society should also have the ability to defend itself against those that would prey upon it. To go through extraordinary lengths to do so, just so there is no guilt off of the first staple need not apply.

Lets be clear, not every criminal need be executed. However just because of that we should not feel bad for putting down wild animals that call themselves human that walk amongst us. Using one bit of social law to prevent another is asinine.

A person does not cease being a person merely because they are bad or committed a crime. I'm sorry if the solution I see as morally preferable is "overly complicated" in your view, but I've long thought that a true test of morality is doing the right thing even when it is not the easiest, most convenient, or cheapest course of action.

Indeed, the right thing even if it is complicated or has baggage. Kind of ridding society from a predator even if your innards are screaming that they look so human.

As I said, not everyone is Hannibal Lector. Most prison guards go to work most days and return home unhurt. Even most of the very dangerous criminals can be safely held and transported. As I said, if you have someone who is continually escaping, or continually managing to hurt others, then you might have a justification from a safety standpoint to execute that individual but it has to be an actual problem and not a theoretical one.

I don't see why, considering the person has already demonstrated unusual behavior in fucking murdering someone violently and horribly to be there in the first place.

[Broomstick]

If you must know, it springs my religion and the idea that life is precious and not to be idly wasted or taken. I do not, however, wish to make this into a religious debate.

That's fine if it's your moral religious stance, however going back to the 'morals come from society' thinking, yes society needs it's people to function therefore killing people in it is bad, hence everyone should have the basic right to live. However, society should also have the ability to defend itself against those that would prey upon it. To go through extraordinary lengths to do so, just so there is no guilt off of the first staple need not apply.

Yes, society has a right to defend itself, but that does not mean slaughter without good reason. Do you kill every wolf in North America, or do you put fences and guard dogs around your sheep and cattle? Who defines "extraordinary lengths"?

My stance does not bar execution entirely - but it does require a VERY high level of threat and does not kill simply because it's convenient or cheaper.

Lets be clear, not every criminal need be executed. However just because of that we should not feel bad for putting down wild animals that call themselves human that walk amongst us. Using one bit of social law to prevent another is asinine.

Who defines which human is now at the status of "animal"? What yardsticks do we use to measure such humanness?

A person does not cease being a person merely because they are bad or committed a crime. I'm sorry if the solution I see as morally preferable is "overly complicated" in your view, but I've long thought that a true test of morality is doing the right thing even when it is not the easiest, most convenient, or cheapest course of action.

Indeed, the right thing even if it is complicated or has baggage. Kind of ridding society from a predator even if your innards are screaming that they look so human.

You know, I don't think people should ever become comfortable with the notion of killing other people. I don't think we should shrink from necessity, either, but killing should not be casual.

As I said, not everyone is Hannibal Lector. Most prison guards go to work most days and return home unhurt. Even most of the very dangerous criminals can be safely held and transported. As I said, if you have someone who is continually escaping, or continually managing to hurt others, then you might have a justification from a safety standpoint to execute that individual but it has to be an actual problem and not a theoretical one.

I don't see why, considering the person has already demonstrated unusual behavior in fucking murdering someone violently and horribly to be there in the first place.

The serial killer is a rare animal. Most murderers only kill once. Many murders are for reasons that make them unlikely to repeat - such as a spouse murdering a spouse for catching said spouse while fucking someone else (perhaps a more effective remedy would be to forbid such a murderer from future intimate relations if betrayal will trigger murder instead of divorce).

Too many in this thread are holding up the very worst of the worst as if they are typical of all murderers when in fact they are not. Too many are holding up 24/7 total isolation as if it is the standard punishment for any murder and it is not.

The truth is we are all capable of murder. That doesn't mean we'll do such a thing in our lifetimes but the reality is that there is not so much difference between us and the criminals sitting in our prisons. It may be comforting to think that, but it is not true.

[Broomstick]

I did say I'd think about this and get back to it:

People on the anti-death-penalty side; what do you propose to do if and when we develop anti-aging treatments and people have indefinite lifespans?

Are you still going to lock people up 'for life' if a life can be centuries or millenia? Or are you going to deny them the anti-aging treatment and thus really implement Mr Bean's 'death by 50 years of aging' penalty? Or are you going to punish murder with just a few decades of imprisonment, quite possibly less than 10% or even 1% of an average lifespan?

First, a lot depends on HOW this "anti-aging" or immortality is achieved. A one-shot-and-you-no-longer-age-ever-again treatment is different than a situation where we become extremely effective at dealing with one symptom of aging after another.

Although society is under some obligation to treat prisoners' medical needs, there are already arguments that certain treatments such as organ transplants are not in the category of "must give to prisoners". Although most people suffer from colds and sniffles, scrapes and cuts, and the like and it seems pretty obvious such should be treated in prisoners, and some things like high blood pressure are pretty cheap to treat, someone requiring expensive and lengthy chemo and a bone marrow transplant, or a liver transplant... well, non-prisoners don't always have an absolute right to those treatments, either. It would be unjust if prisoners got better medical treatment than non-prisoners. So... if the anti-aging treatments are expensive well, too bad for you that you were sent to prison long enough for the lack of such treatments to kill you, just as it would be bad luck if you went to prison and developed leukemia while there. Particularly if no one in such a hypothetical future is given anti-aging treatment as a right, that is, they all have to be paid for by the patient, then a prisoner incarcerated for a prolonged period is just plain out of luck in regards to same.

If the anti-aging is some (let's wank) magical shot of nanobots that will ever after keep you young an healthy then yes, we might have to look at maximum length of sentence - which could still be quite lengthy, running into centuries.

However, even the best anti-aging treatment will not, in fact, make anyone immortal. I read once (many years ago, no internet cite) an estimate that even if no one aged people would still, on average, only live 600-750 years (or something like that) because accidents would eventually kill people off.

We might also bring back the concept of exile - if this hypothetical society had some sort of space infrastructure you might sentence the Ultimate Baddies off to some sort of space habitat or something.

[Kanastrous]

Suicide and murder don't seem to be ways out, if we're positing magical mystery nanobot-immortality.

Short of having yourself near-instantly vaporized, the nanos might just keep reviving you so that you can be murdered/commit suicide again and again, for thousands more years.

Actually, that sounds like a very nasty punishment.

Good deal.

[Kanastrous]

Your confidence in the details of nonexistent future technology, is greater than mine.

[CaptainZoidberg]

I don't see the problem with keeping someone in jail for thousands of years. They could get lots of social interaction through simulations that connect to the outside world, and we could set up protected and monitored computer systems that would allow them to read books or watch movies and not get bored.

If I had interesting things to do and people to interact with, I honestly wouldn't mind living in a prison for the next 3000 years.

[Darth Wong]

Your confidence in the details of nonexistent future technology, is greater than mine.

You honestly think we need to know the "details" of this imaginary technology in order to say it's unreasonable to expect it to magically repair the effects of a shotgun blast to the head before death occurs?

This reminds me of that idiotic Star Trek DS9 episode about the magic nanobots which made everyone immortal. I guess no one on that planet ever thought of simply incinerating somebody's head.

[Darth Wong]

However, even the best anti-aging treatment will not, in fact, make anyone immortal. I read once (many years ago, no internet cite) an estimate that even if no one aged people would still, on average, only live 600-750 years (or something like that) because accidents would eventually kill people off.

If we found a way to halt the aging process and it became available to everyone instead of just the super-rich, I can say with confidence that the number one cause of death would be war. Crippling, widespread, endless war that starts when the inevitable population explosion leads to massive devastating conflicts over limited land and resources.

[Adrian Laguna]

If we found a way to halt the aging process and it became available to everyone instead of just the super-rich, I can say with confidence that the number one cause of death would be war. Crippling, widespread, endless war that starts when the inevitable population explosion leads to massive devastating conflicts over limited land and resources.

Oh, I don't know about the "endless" part. It'll probably end when atomics start being thrown around. What happens after that is anyone's guess, but it could be possible the surviving states employ draconian population control methods, thus allowing for peace and stability.

[Knife]

Yes, society has a right to defend itself, but that does not mean slaughter without good reason.

Who said anything about slaughter? And why would you put that word and it's implication in this line of thought?

Do you kill every wolf in North America, or do you put fences and guard dogs around your sheep and cattle? Who defines "extraordinary lengths"?

And here I was thinking we were talking about the rabid lone wolves and not the packs that live in equilibrium.

My stance does not bar execution entirely - but it does require a VERY high level of threat and does not kill simply because it's convenient or cheaper.

Again, I though those were the people we were talking about and I've stated at least twice that I want a higher burden of proof attached. So...what's the beef?

Who defines which human is now at the status of "animal"? What yardsticks do we use to measure such humanness?

Uhm, off the top of my head; the court system using the expertise of medically trained personnel in those particular disciplines. We know how to make diagnosis of socialpathic and psychotic behavior. Those people who do horrific crimes who are socialpathic and/or psychotic would represent these 'rabid dogs'. The model is fairly simple. We don't off people because of psychotic or socialpathic tendencies, but those that can't work within social norms and prey off of society are a new argument.

You know, I don't think people should ever become comfortable with the notion of killing other people. I don't think we should shrink from necessity, either, but killing should not be casual.

No it shouldn't be casual and people are not comfortable with it who aren't fucked up in the head; ask any vet. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be done either. People generally don't like seeing torn up mutalated people and yet there are those out there that try to save, heal, take care of and clean up the mess of such things.

The serial killer is a rare animal. Most murderers only kill once. Many murders are for reasons that make them unlikely to repeat - such as a spouse murdering a spouse for catching said spouse while fucking someone else (perhaps a more effective remedy would be to forbid such a murderer from future intimate relations if betrayal will trigger murder instead of divorce).

What the hell does that have to do with anything I've said? Of course those people wouldn't qualify for execution under what I've been saying. In the heat of the moment, finding your wife banging your best friend and shooting them both, while deserving of punishment, isn't a predator of society. Violently rapping and killing kids is. Serial killers are. I thought we were all talking about the same people so how the hell did 'normal' criminals creep in there?

Too many in this thread are holding up the very worst of the worst as if they are typical of all murderers when in fact they are not. Too many are holding up 24/7 total isolation as if it is the standard punishment for any murder and it is not.

See, I was under the impression that most in this thread were holding the worst up as 'normal' for execution, not 'normal' for criminals.

The truth is we are all capable of murder. That doesn't mean we'll do such a thing in our lifetimes but the reality is that there is not so much difference between us and the criminals sitting in our prisons. It may be comforting to think that, but it is not true.

This statement doesn't jive with your earlier one where we shouldn't think of execution or murder as normal or become comfortable with it. violence is a normal condition for humans, but I don't think murder or outright savagery meant to kill is.

[Darth Wong]

Uhm, off the top of my head; the court system using the expertise of medically trained personnel in those particular disciplines.

The problem is that quite frankly, clinical psychology and psychiatry have a shit record compared to any of the hard sciences. The day they started allowing psychiatrists and psychologists to testify as expert witnesses in court, they created at least as many problems as they solved.

What the hell does that have to do with anything I've said? Of course those people wouldn't qualify for execution under what I've been saying. In the heat of the moment, finding your wife banging your best friend and shooting them both, while deserving of punishment, isn't a predator of society. Violently rapping and killing kids is. Serial killers are. I thought we were all talking about the same people so how the hell did 'normal' criminals creep in there?

I don't think most people would have a problem with the death penalty if it was only applied to serial killers. However, I have never seen a death penalty state that actually had such a stipulation.

[Broomstick]

Yes, society has a right to defend itself, but that does not mean slaughter without good reason.

Who said anything about slaughter? And why would you put that word and it's implication in this line of thought?

Unjustified killing is slaughter, isn't it? Deciding that everyone who, say, raped someone under the age of 18 should be summarily executed would result in quite a number of corpses. Execution should be a last resort and we should be explicit that we are deliberately killing a human being.

Do you kill every wolf in North America, or do you put fences and guard dogs around your sheep and cattle? Who defines "extraordinary lengths"?

And here I was thinking we were talking about the rabid lone wolves and not the packs that live in equilibrium.

You don't think organized crime is a problem? Or gangs? What about someone who is a professional "hit-man" for the mob? Wow, talk about cold-blooded killing - I doubt such a person acts in passion (hey, it's a job, right?) or has the excuse of mental illness. One does not have to be a "lone wolf" to be dangerous.

My stance does not bar execution entirely - but it does require a VERY high level of threat and does not kill simply because it's convenient or cheaper.

Again, I though those were the people we were talking about and I've stated at least twice that I want a higher burden of proof attached. So...what's the beef?

With you - very little. I just feel it's very important to keep underlining that execution should be an exceptional way to deal with murderers, not the norm.

The serial killer is a rare animal. Most murderers only kill once. Many murders are for reasons that make them unlikely to repeat - such as a spouse murdering a spouse for catching said spouse while fucking someone else (perhaps a more effective remedy would be to forbid such a murderer from future intimate relations if betrayal will trigger murder instead of divorce).

What the hell does that have to do with anything I've said? Of course those people wouldn't qualify for execution under what I've been saying.

There are people, however, who claim that taking a life justifies an execution. Without qualification of that view in such a scenario as above they might argue for the death penalty.

Violently rapping and killing kids is. Serial killers are. I thought we were all talking about the same people so how the hell did 'normal' criminals creep in there?

Where do we draw the line? It used to be that pick-pocketing was punishable by hanging. What divides "killable" from "non-killable"?

Too many in this thread are holding up the very worst of the worst as if they are typical of all murderers when in fact they are not. Too many are holding up 24/7 total isolation as if it is the standard punishment for any murder and it is not.

See, I was under the impression that most in this thread were holding the worst up as 'normal' for execution, not 'normal' for criminals.

Obviously, we formed different impressions.

The truth is we are all capable of murder. That doesn't mean we'll do such a thing in our lifetimes but the reality is that there is not so much difference between us and the criminals sitting in our prisons. It may be comforting to think that, but it is not true.

This statement doesn't jive with your earlier one where we shouldn't think of execution or murder as normal or become comfortable with it. violence is a normal condition for humans, but I don't think murder or outright savagery meant to kill is.

You missed my point - we are all capable of killing, even if we don't actually kill. It is misleading to think there is a sharp dividing line between the law-abiding and the criminal. That is precisely why we should be careful to make the correct decisions, to not become desensitized, to not dump criminals into the category "non-human".

[Winston Blake]

I would think we are above the appeal to emotion red herring of the mentally diseased, as a significant portion of criminality is the possession of the mental faculties to determine right from wrong, but the lack of the moral faculties to follow said determinations. Cute attempt, but don't insult us with bullshit.

What's your point? Where did I imply that criminals and retarded children have the same moral culpability? We address the culpability of violent criminals - by putting them in prison, obviously. My point is obviously that if life imprisonment should be changed to execution because of the cost to society and because life confinement is a death sentence, then those specific arguments also apply to the mentally infirm.

Well, there is the arguments that

1) Those people have done nothing to deserve death, arguably murderers have. It's the murderer's own fault for being a murderer, a retarded or disabled person never chose to be that way.

2) Those people for the most part are not dangerous to others in the way that murderers are.

I'm not sure the two are really comparable.

1) Again, I'm not saying that the mentally infirm are morally culpable, like violent criminals. We address the culpability of violent criminals by putting them in prison. Punishment having been addressed, you have the OP advocating death instead of life in prison for reasons that also apply to the mentally infirm.

2) Fair point, in retrospect I should have omitted the 'risk' part in "'they'll never be released, they're a risk to others, and they're dead weight on society' ". I also addressed risk elsewhere. The other two remain.

Winston Blake, you're comparing dangerous elements of society such as rapists, murderers and child rapists and murderers to mentally or physically disabled harmless people?

Yes, because the validity of comparisons lies in what aspects are being compared, and not your personal incredulity at the subjects of the comparison.

'Winston Churchill and Adolf Hitler are similar in that they both had a great influence on the 20th Century'. My God! I'm comparing Churchill to Hitler!

[Junghalli]

1) Again, I'm not saying that the mentally infirm are morally culpable, like violent criminals. We address the culpability of violent criminals by putting them in prison. Punishment having been addressed, you have the OP advocating death instead of life in prison for reasons that also apply to the mentally infirm.

Well, you could argue that mentally retarded and severely disabled have more of a right to be cared for by society than murderers, on account of it not being their own fault and/or the murderer having effectively forfeited his right to life when he started killing other people.

[Winston Blake]

Well, you could argue that mentally retarded and severely disabled have more of a right to be cared for by society than murderers, on account of it not being their own fault and/or the murderer having effectively forfeited his right to life when he started killing other people.

Bolding mine. For the first part, fault isn't an issue - my position would be the same for people who did it to themselves, e.g. voluntarily took brain-damaging drugs. The second part is an unjustified assumption.

[Dark Hellion]

By the same logic saying that prisoners deserve rights is similarly unjustified. In fact, the whole idea that humans have rights period is because someone took just such an unjustified statement and made compelling arguments for it.

[Aquatain]

1. All Nations of the World already have the Death Penalty
In any justice system where it is possible to sentance someone to more than one hundred years of prison time..

Few places allow you be sentenced for a hundred years, if you commit two murders and get 30 years for each, you are not sentenced for 60 years.

That governments demands that this murdering asshole serve his time back to back is just a matter of efficacy.

Even in other places it's impossible to get a sentence above 15 years (Sweden i believe) even if you have killed a truckload of people , though they might plan for you to gain a personal suite on a mental institution after you have done time.

[Winston Blake]

By the same logic saying that prisoners deserve rights is similarly unjustified. In fact, the whole idea that humans have rights period is because someone took just such an unjustified statement and made compelling arguments for it.

Bolding mine. What meaning of 'unjustified' are you using? I don't see compelling arguments for why certain crimes mean 'forfeiting the right to life'.

[Dark Hellion]

Why do you have a right to life in the first place? What gives you this? Unless you like metaphysical higher powers, you had better have an answer to why the right to life is the naturally assumed normal, instead of something which has been given via some principal such as social contracts.

You don't get to have your cake and eat it too in such metaethical discussions. This is why they are hard and despite around 4000 years of work on the subject there is no good answer. Ethics isn't physics, you can't simply stick some metaethical presupposition (such as humans have a right to life) in a moralometer and get an answer.

[Winston Blake]

Why do you have a right to life in the first place? What gives you this? Unless you like metaphysical higher powers, you had better have an answer to why the right to life is the naturally assumed normal, instead of something which has been given via some principal such as social contracts.

'Right to life' were Junghalli's words, not mine. You keep attacking strawmen. My position has nothing to do with any 'right to life'. Without tediously restating things, my main point is that I don't see any benefit to capital punishment that is worth the risk of absolute, irreversible injustice against wrongly convicted people. For example, if Australia had capital punishment for violent murder, Stofsk would be dead right now.

You don't get to have your cake and eat it too in such metaethical discussions. This is why they are hard and despite around 4000 years of work on the subject there is no good answer. Ethics isn't physics, you can't simply stick some metaethical presupposition (such as humans have a right to life) in a moralometer and get an answer.

How do you about the Moralometer? I've got patent pending on that!

[Dark Hellion]

Then don't strawman my position with bullshit appeal to emotion attacks. I stated that I don't believe that the death penalty can be practically applied on any sort of scale within any current system of governance. But the abstract of the death penalty, the question of whether or not we could take another human life in punishment for crimes we as society deem to horrible to allow the perpetrator to live is a very different beast and one that most anti-death penalty arguers like to ignore. It is a harder argument to make, as it relies on the interaction of very basic, usually axiomatic ethical claims (such as the sanctity of human life, the argument about whether Lex Talionis is a working system of justice, just how we choose to apply the golden rule, etc.) and often has the probably of pulling the metaphysical skeletons out of most peoples closets. It is very hard not to have metaphysical assumptions that shape your world view, despite how much most science and logic people hate the idea. It's how are minds are built to deal with problems like how fragile human life is compared to how much we instinctively want to value it.

[Junghalli]

My position has nothing to do with any 'right to life'. Without tediously restating things, my main point is that I don't see any benefit to capital punishment that is worth the risk of absolute, irreversible injustice against wrongly convicted people. For example, if Australia had capital punishment for violent murder, Stofsk would be dead right now.

That is exactly the reason I oppose the death penalty in practice. I was stating a hypothetical case where there's basically no reasonable doubt at all that the guy is guilty (say, 50 independent witnesses and it's caught on videotape). In that case I don't personally see why the death penalty should be off the table, as the most cost-effective and reliable means of making sure the guy never gets to hurt anyone again.

For me personally the reliability factor is more important than the cost factor. No matter how good the prison there's always the chance that he may somehow escape and kill again. You don't have to worry about that when he's a skeleton (barring a literal miracle).