Is the death penalty moral/ethical?

[Kanastrous]

Re-read it for comprehension. Point taken.

[hongi]

My personal view on this is that taking a human life is always immoral, no matter the circumstances. Taking a human life should be discussed more on the grounds of practicality, rather than those of morality, that is, discussing when there's no better choice but to take a life, rather than if it is morally right to do so.

I sorta get your point, so killing the Nazis was immoral but a necessary evil?

[Alyrium Denryle]

I actually deal with this indirectly in my prior posts in this thread, so when I reference them, I urge you to back and take a look at them.

This, to me, is particularly completely irrational.

Why? You have not justified the irrationality of this proposition at all.

That society is asked to support this individual is absurd.

Why? It makes a good amount of sense if your goal is to maximize utility. (see above)

I extend this line of thinking to long/life imprisonment, as well. Society should not be called upon to uphold an individual guilty of wronging it in such a fashion. If you commit a heinous crime, you've waived your status as human, and therefore your entitlement to human rights.

WHat human rights? I always love how rights theorists assume that the notion of Rights is some sort of first principle that is so obvious they need not defend, when it is in fact very highly derived. From whence cometh these rights, and even if one were not "human" as you put it, why do they not apply?

For individuals meeting this qualifier, I have a simple solution: pit fights. No, I'm not kidding.

You are a monster. Congrats.

Commercially-sponsored pit fights, broadcast on TV like sporting events, would attract immense audiences and prove highly profitable to advertisers. I suspect it would outshine the Superbowl for amount of money invested for ad placement.

And now you need to be placed in a padded cell. Who in their right mind would advertize, or want to watch such cruelty?

Accepted combatants would be all those convicted of heinous crimes, released into an arena with the directive to kill the opponent. Weapons may or may not be present, depending on the level of security available. Last man standing gets to live to see the next pit fight. Under no circumstances should any eligible fighter receive any amount of care, be it basic (i.e. food, clothing, shelter) or medical (i.e. first aid), except that which is deemed necessary to get them to the next fight.

This is so patently evil, that it does not even warrant a response. A group of people willing to engage in this level of cruelty is just as bad as the people they are torturing to death.

Is it barbaric? Sure. Is it morally repugnant? I would argue that, at worst, it's on par with staged animal fights. These people aren't human anymore, stop treating them as if they're somehow sacred, rather than sacks of meat.

Guess what you sick, sadistic sack of human trash, staged animal fights are also illegal and considered unethical throughout the civilized world. Go do everyone a favor and rid yourself from the gene pool. Your existence is a crime against humanity, you sociopathic parasite upon human kindness.

[McC]

Oh, Alyrium, you're so cute and predictable.

staged animal fights are also illegal and considered unethical throughout the civilized world.

Quite so, which is why I mention that the morality of criminal fights would be on par. I did not delve into the morality of that kind of staged fight. I completely agree that such forced fights are outrageously inhumane where animals are concerned.

As for the rest of your rage-driven bile, I prefaced the post with as many disclaimers as seemed necessary. The fundamental line running through the idea is that these people are completely irredeemable and there is no ambiguity as to their guilt. Both of these absolute concepts are utter trash in the real world, but the premise of the thread is posing a what-if question, so I responded with a what-if answer. If you want to go off the deep end and assume that I would ever posit such a system in the real world, you go right ahead. I'll be over here, chuckling at the absurdity.

[Alyrium Denryle]

As for the rest of your rage-driven bile, I prefaced the post with as many disclaimers as seemed necessary. The fundamental line running through the idea is that these people are completely irredeemable and there is no ambiguity as to their guilt. Both of these absolute concepts are utter trash in the real world, but the premise of the thread is posing a what-if question, so I responded with a what-if answer. If you want to go off the deep end and assume that I would ever posit such a system in the real world, you go right ahead. I'll be over here, chuckling at the absurdity.

And the "what if" answer itself is inherently unethical. Even if we had a perfect criminal justice system, and even if we are dealing with a prison population consisting of Jeffrey Dahmer clones, your proposal still reeks of sadistic crap which you have not bothered to justify.

[McC]

And the "what if" answer itself is inherently unethical. Even if we had a perfect criminal justice system, and even if we are dealing with a prison population consisting of Jeffrey Dahmer clones, your proposal still reeks of sadistic crap which you have not bothered to justify.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that utilitarianism is your ethical system of choice. The guiding principle of utilitarianism, according to wikipedia, is "the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its contribution to overall utility: that is, its contribution to happiness or pleasure as summed among all persons." I'll go from abstract concepts to specific concepts.

• Removal of a irredeemable individual from society
  • Ethical Utility
    • Benefits: society
    • Harms: individual, (potentially) friends of individual
    • Net: Benefit (ethical)
  • Conclusion: It is ethical to remove irredeemable individuals from society.

The above currently takes one of two formats.

• Incarceration of individual at society's expense
  • Ethical Utility
    • Benefits: society (removes individual from society)
    • Harms: society (decrease of societal resources to maintain facility), individual (forced incarceration)
    • Net: Harm (unethical)
  • Conclusion: It is unethical to incarcerate an individual at society's expense
• Euthanizing of individual after an indeterminate period of incarceration at society's expense
  • Ethical Utility
    • Benefits: society (removes individual from society), individual (death is quick and painless)
    • Harms: society (decrease of societal resources to maintain facility, euthanasia chemicals), individual (forced incarceration, death)
    • Net: Neutral
  • Conclusion: It is neither ethical nor unethical to euthanize an irredeemable individual

The interesting thing here is that the net ethical value of incarceration actually goes up (neutralizes, rather than being unethical) when the individual is euthanized. One could argue that there is some benefit to the individual to being incarcerated (guarantee of basic needs), rendering the first bullet neutral as well.

Now for my "proposal"

• Irredeemable individuals are pitted against one another in fights to the death while the combat is broadcast as a spectator sport, sponsored by commercial entities
  • Ethical Utility
    • Benefits: society (removes individual from society, tax refund), commercial entities (advertising time), economic entities (potential for new jobs)
    • Indeterminate: society (questionable psychological impact of viewing), commercial entities (potential backlash for supporting the event)*
    • Harms: individual(s) (psychological trauma, fighting to the death, etc.), commercial entities (cost of advertising)
    • Net: Benefit (ethical)
  • Conclusion: It is ethical to broadcast pit fights between irredeemable individuals in the interest of financial gain

I marked one of the entries above, because of a prior remark of yours, questioning who would watch such a spectacle. Personally, I think most of this country would find such a spectacle appealing rather than revolting. This is based on naught but anecdotal evidence, so any requests to back it up will be met with a hearty "f u dummy" -- I don't know, and no survey has been conducted, so I can't say with any measure of certainty. I think it to be so, but I can't offer you proof and don't claim it as fact. As such, I don't think there would be a backlash against any commercial entities for advertising/supporting the spectacle. Further, so long as it is known that there is a market for the spectacle, I think commercial entities will support it. Again, a personal conclusion drawn from anecdotal evidence.

As a further caveat, I know I'm distilling utilitarianism as a philosophy down to ridiculous levels. I wanted a quick litmus-test version, though. Negative Utilitarianism is probably a better philosophical measure (or at least, more biased towards the individual in this case) overall. Do with it what you will. I'm not out to convince anyone of the "rightness" of this idea and don't particularly care to spend anymore time "justifying" something so patently absurd for so many reasons.

[Alyrium Denryle]

First off your weighing of utility needs work. Second, utilitarianism is a maximization function. It is not enough that something have a positive balance of pleasure vs pain. It is required that the chosen action maximize utility, or have the Most Positive value.

Incarceration of individual at society's expense
o Ethical Utility
+ Benefits: society (removes individual from society)
+ Harms: society (decrease of societal resources to maintain facility), individual (forced incarceration)
+ Net: Harm (unethical)
o Conclusion: It is unethical to incarcerate an individual at society's expense

This is incorrect. Your argument implicitly assumes that the money gets thrown into a money pit such that it never re-enters circulation or sees the light of day again. This is not true. When looking at the marginal utility of incarceration, no individual actually suffers for it because the per capita costs of incarcerating criminals is negligible. Moreover, the prisons employ people, recirculating the costs into the economy in demand-side fashion. Mmm Tasty Tasty Liquidity. In the end, you harm the criminal and their family less than the other alternative (death penalty) the societal costs are roughly the same (as the prison system is pretty much a fixed cost anyway that does not scale linearly with the number of prisoners in prison at any one time and the number of people that commit death penalty crimes are a small fraction of the prison population)

Moreover, you assume that benefit and harm are was. IE that the individual in society is harmed in equal proportion to the person being killed. This is patently ridiculous.

This leads to your conclusion being incorrect.

Had you bothered reading the thread, I actually went into this exact scenario. Why? Because I am a utilitarian.

* Euthanizing of individual after an indeterminate period of incarceration at society's expense
o Ethical Utility
+ Benefits: society (removes individual from society), individual (death is quick and painless)
+ Harms: society (decrease of societal resources to maintain facility, euthanasia chemicals), individual (forced incarceration, death)
+ Net: Neutral
o Conclusion: It is neither ethical nor unethical to euthanize an irredeemable individual

See above section about the faulty assumption that leads to your faulty conclusion.

Moreover, you assume that benefit and harm are was. IE that the individual in society is harmed in equal proportion to the person being killed. This is patently ridiculous.


What happens when we assume things?

The rest of that section is dealt with above as well.

* Irredeemable individuals are pitted against one another in fights to the death while the combat is broadcast as a spectator sport, sponsored by commercial entities
o Ethical Utility
+ Benefits: society (removes individual from society, tax refund), commercial entities (advertising time), economic entities (potential for new jobs)
+ Indeterminate: society (questionable psychological impact of viewing), commercial entities (potential backlash for supporting the event)*
+ Harms: individual(s) (psychological trauma, fighting to the death, etc.), commercial entities (cost of advertising)
+ Net: Benefit (ethical)
o Conclusion: It is ethical to broadcast pit fights between irredeemable individuals in the interest of financial gain

Your indeterminate part is bullshit. Having televised death-matches is certainly going to have harmful secondary effects. As will backlash. Why? Because do not live in ancient Rome. There will be psychological trauma to people that watch that shit, and clean up after it. Study after study have shown that people do not actually respond well to horrific violence.

Might there be some economic benefit? Sure. But because Utilitarianism requires utility maximization, and that economic benefit can be had elsewhere to less detrimental effect, your proposal is rendered unethical.

Personally, I think most of this country would find such a spectacle appealing rather than revolting. This is based on naught but anecdotal evidence, so any requests to back it up will be met with a hearty "f u dummy" -- I don't know, and no survey has been conducted, so I can't say with any measure of certainty.

Then you should not have made a proposal you could not defend, shitbrick.

As a further caveat, I know I'm distilling utilitarianism as a philosophy down to ridiculous levels.

Actually you didnt even do that. You bastardized and raped it. Jeremy Bentham would be rolling in his grave.

[Samuel]

Also: the cost to society of maintaining the criminal is probably not sufficiently high to justify the harm done to them and their families from the standpoint of a utilitarian ethical system. Argument from marginal utility. It costs a few thousands of dollars (the max I think I have ever seen was 30k) per year to maintain a lifer. I am not sure how those figures are calculated, but I would hazard most of those are fixed costs and related to maintaining the prison itself (IE. the only costs involved with the prisoner an sich is food and other disposables and per year that does not tally to 30k.) spread out over the political body which has jurisdiction (the state we shall assume) the marginal loss in utility is minuscule.

You do not mention the increased utility brought about by the employment of people needed to build and maintain said prison. A certain number of people derive their livelihood from working as prison guards and support staff. So while there is a certain drain on resources in housing prisoners there is a return to the economy when prison staff buy food, housing, and other items with their paychecks.

Maybe we should just break windows so that the window manufactors have more employment

Not to derail the thread any, but... what? Do you mean that you support a Big Brother state, and that somehow the cost of capital punishment is an argument in favor of said state? I'm trying to see where you are coming from here, because I certainly don't subscribe to your philosophy if that is the case. IMO, we have enough problems with state abuse already without opening that particular can of worms.

No. In 1984 they only watched less than 20% of the society and intemitantly. I want 100% in public locations.

The argument in favor is all criminal cases, not just capital crimes. It becomes insanely har to commit crimes if the police can just look it up. If we get sophisticated enough AIs, we can catch people in the act. Next- ID chips.

If I may ask that you elaborate? I am unfamiliar with that method.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jigsaw_Man
The story is about unintended consequences (making misdeminors capital crimes), but people have a viseral fear of being organ harvested. Could be wrong about that though.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Maybe we should just break windows so that the window manufactors have more employment

What a wonderful strawman you have constructed. Oh, and a red herring to!

[Samuel]

Maybe we should just break windows so that the window manufactors have more employment

What a wonderful strawman you have constructed. Oh, and a red herring to!

Except it isn't. Broomstick was saying that putting people in prison is good because it leads to more jobs. Prison guards are a net loss to society- just like breaking windows to ensure people can have more jobs which benefits individuals but is also a net loss to society. This is basic economic theory.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Except it isn't. Broomstick was saying that putting people in prison is good because it leads to more jobs. Prison guards are a net loss to society- just like breaking windows to ensure people can have more jobs which benefits individuals but is also a net loss to society. This is basic economic theory.

In terms of utility it is no different from any other job. That was the point she was making. We were not discussion economic theory, but Utilitarianism.

Of course in economic terms, the proverbial window will break. Therefore you need to have someone there to fix broken windows. You may not be creating wealth, but you are serving a useful function and creating demand (via employment) for other goods and services which do.

[Samuel]

Except it isn't. Broomstick was saying that putting people in prison is good because it leads to more jobs. Prison guards are a net loss to society- just like breaking windows to ensure people can have more jobs which benefits individuals but is also a net loss to society. This is basic economic theory.

In terms of utility it is no different from any other job. That was the point she was making. We were not discussion economic theory, but Utilitarianism.

Except that assumes that the given individuals would not get jobs otherwise. In the case of prison guards, we are taking them away from other vocations hence lowering utility for society. It is a net utility cost for society as well, not to mention occasionally for the prison guards.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Except it isn't. Broomstick was saying that putting people in prison is good because it leads to more jobs. Prison guards are a net loss to society- just like breaking windows to ensure people can have more jobs which benefits individuals but is also a net loss to society. This is basic economic theory.

In terms of utility it is no different from any other job. That was the point she was making. We were not discussion economic theory, but Utilitarianism.

Except that assumes that the given individuals would not get jobs otherwise. In the case of prison guards, we are taking them away from other vocations hence lowering utility for society. It is a net utility cost for society as well, not to mention occasionally for the prison guards.

Edited my above post with this argument for the sake of post-count-economy. However...

You are equating economic utility, with ethical utility. The two are different things. See above for the rest.

[Formless]

No. In 1984 they only watched less than 20% of the society and intemitantly. I want 100% in public locations.

The argument in favor is all criminal cases, not just capital crimes. It becomes insanely har to commit crimes if the police can just look it up. If we get sophisticated enough AIs, we can catch people in the act. Next- ID chips.

And you don't understand the potential for abuse in this system because...?

Granted, if the information were allowed to be free (I.E. allow the populace to see surveillance recordings as well in cases of police abuse of power etc.), then the system would be more fair. But as it is you are giving the government the ultimate power to enforce its agenda, even if said agenda isn't necessarily lawful or ethical. And don't tell me that that can't happen, there are too many historical precedents of totalitarian governments doing similar things to throw out the possibility.

And that isn't taking into account privacy laws. Yes, you did say public spaces, but at what point do you cross the line? Should my front porch be considered a public space, so the government can watch me water my garden? Does the utility/benefit of having any and all crimes recorded outweigh the social concerns of being spied on whenever you are out of the house? Like, how many people are going to be comfortable going on dates, buying entertainment, doing whatever when the government can see what you are doing at all times? Privacy extends outside your home, after all.

And, really, what is the point in expending all these resources on creating a Digital Nanny state anyway when the same resources can be put to better use getting rid of poverty, fixing the environment, putting people into space, and damn well every other thing that is high on the agenda for the human race? Especially poverty, since crime is mostly an expression of social ills created by it? There is a reason the majority of convicts are from poor backgrounds, after all. A reason black people are disproportionately represented in the American prison system.

The problem with your "perfect solution to crime", as I see it, is that you are trying to attack the outcome of the problem rather than the root of it, thinking that a high tech brute force solution will solve all ills when it creates problems as well.

Please, tell me how this is a good idea. I really want to hear it.

[Samuel]

Edited my above post with this argument for the sake of post-count-economy. However...

You are equating economic utility, with ethical utility. The two are different things. See above for the rest.

I am aware they are different. However, when possible we try to maximize economic utility as well because it has ethical utility. Guarding prisoners has no gain in economic utility- however, even building a bridge to nowhere has an ethical utility gain as people stand to benefit from it and it makes their lives easier.

Of course in economic terms, the proverbial window will break. Therefore you need to have someone there to fix broken windows. You may not be creating wealth, but you are serving a useful function and creating demand (via employment) for other goods and services which do.

Except you are counting it as a boon. If you kill the prisoners, you can still employ the guards, so you count count their employment as a benefit of life-long imprisonment.

And you don't understand the potential for abuse in this system because...?

As opposed to simply infiltrating opposition organizations with FBI agents or driving dissidents out of the country? We can already do that- this just makes it easier.

But as it is you are giving the government the ultimate power to enforce its agenda, even if said agenda isn't necessarily lawful or ethical. And don't tell me that that can't happen, there are too many historical precedents of totalitarian governments doing similar things to throw out the possibility.

The ultimate power is life and death, not information.The government ALREADY has that power as by definition a government is a body that has the exclusive right to force in an area.

And that isn't taking into account privacy laws. Yes, you did say public spaces, but at what point do you cross the line? Should my front porch be considered a public space, so the government can watch me water my garden?

Correct.

Does the utility/benefit of having any and all crimes recorded outweigh the social concerns of being spied on whenever you are out of the house? Like, how many people are going to be comfortable going on dates, buying entertainment, doing whatever when the government can see what you are doing at all times? Privacy extends outside your home, after all.

I'm pretty sure privacy has no utility value while being free from fear does. As it is, why should you be worried that the government can see you on dates, shopping or the like? If reality TV has shown us anything, it is that people are amazingly unconcerned sharing this with millions of strangers.

And, really, what is the point in expending all these resources on creating a Digital Nanny state anyway when the same resources can be put to better use getting rid of poverty, fixing the environment, putting people into space, and damn well every other thing that is high on the agenda for the human race?

The same could be said for any other agenda. Do you have a point?

Especially poverty, since crime is mostly an expression of social ills created by it? There is a reason the majority of convicts are from poor backgrounds, after all. A reason black people are disproportionately represented in the American prison system.

That and the fact that the drugs black men use have higher sentances than the ones white guys use. But even with lower poverty, crime will remain. In fact, crime helps contribute to poverty- stores in poor neighborhoods have to charge higher prices to cover for theft.

The problem with your "perfect solution to crime", as I see it, is that you are trying to attack the outcome of the problem rather than the root of it, thinking that a high tech brute force solution will solve all ills when it creates problems as well.

We do both, duh! See: geoengineering.

Please, tell me how this is a good idea. I really want to hear it.

Because being safe and secure has a high utility value and this goes a long way to achieving that.

[Akkleptos]

Firstly, I just want to point out that many of the arguments against the death penalty I've seen here are seriously flawed because of one simple thing: considering all human lives to have an equal intrinsical value, when the lives of murderers, child abusers, et al are clearly NOT worth the same as the lives of good doctors, children with a future to look forwards to, struggling hardworking single parents, et al. So, yes, irredeeemable criminals are still human, but it doesn't follow that their lives are worth exactly the same as those of valuable members of society. Failure to acknowledge this simple fact is terribly short-sighted, to say the least.

Your indeterminate part is bullshit. Having televised death-matches is certainly going to have harmful secondary effects. As will backlash. Why? Because do not live in ancient Rome. There will be psychological trauma to people that watch that shit, and clean up after it. Study after study have shown that people do not actually respond well to horrific violence.

As seen in, um, The Running Man?

And that isn't taking into account privacy laws. Yes, you did say public spaces, but at what point do you cross the line? Should my front porch be considered a public space, so the government can watch me water my garden? Does the utility/benefit of having any and all crimes recorded outweigh the social concerns of being spied on whenever you are out of the house? Like, how many people are going to be comfortable going on dates, buying entertainment, doing whatever when the government can see what you are doing at all times? Privacy extends outside your home, after all.

I don't see how that could be such a big deal, unless you're planning on burying a murder victim in your garden, or rape your date, or buying illegal porno, etc.

Personally, I wouldn't mind having a dispute over a traffic accident resolved irrefutably via consulting the adequate street camera video log.

[Oskuro]

My personal view on this is that taking a human life is always immoral, no matter the circumstances. Taking a human life should be discussed more on the grounds of practicality, rather than those of morality, that is, discussing when there's no better choice but to take a life, rather than if it is morally right to do so.

I sorta get your point, so killing the Nazis was immoral but a necessary evil?

Pretty much, yeah. My point is that, regardless of how necessary putting someone down might be, the act of taking a life cannot ever be seen as something morally acceptable. Since the OP was about the morality of the death penalty, my opinion is that it is inherently immoral, but in certain situations, necessary, hence my point that it should be discussed due to its necessity rather than it's morality.

No matter how you try to twist it, killing is wrong, and this wrongness is one of the basic tennets of human society, that's why it is one of the most heinous crimes. Even a soldier killing an oppossing soldier is doing something morally wrong, regardless of how necessary it was.

In fact, many of the posters on this thread are discussing about how practical it would be to abolish the death penalty in certain cases, even though morality and practicallity get a bit mixed up in some of the posts.

Am I implying that the justice system is immoral? Actually, I'm suggesting that the justice system should be amoral.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Failure to acknowledge this simple fact is terribly short-sighted, to say the least.

If I were a deontologist you might have a point. But suffering is suffering no matter where it comes from. So against my argument, you dont. Unless I want to delve back into the deontological argument against the death penalty derived from philosophical naturalism... And even then you dont have a point against my argument.

I am aware they are different. However, when possible we try to maximize economic utility as well because it has ethical utility. Guarding prisoners has no gain in economic utility- however, even building a bridge to nowhere has an ethical utility gain as people stand to benefit from it and it makes their lives easier.

Certainly economic utility has an ethical utility, but in this case the marginal cost is minuscule (really equivalent to the initial damage of the crime...)

Except you are counting it as a boon. If you kill the prisoners, you can still employ the guards, so you count count their employment as a benefit of life-long imprisonment.

The point at the very least is that it is not a harm to employ them in that manner vs other forms of employment. The harm done by maintaining prisoners ("draining society") is negated by the fact that the money goes back into the system. So barring the crimes never having been committed in the first place (analogous to the baseball not having hit the proverbial window), not killing said prisoners is the best option.

[Samuel]

Certainly economic utility has an ethical utility, but in this case the marginal cost is minuscule (really equivalent to the initial damage of the crime...)

Are we talking about the same thing? I was objecting to you find it as a benefit to that option compared to other options.

The harm done by maintaining prisoners ("draining society") is negated by the fact that the money goes back into the system.

Work-hours and cash are two different things.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Are we talking about the same thing? I was objecting to you find it as a benefit to that option compared to other options.

When you compare it to other options, on analysis, the drain to society from supporting the criminals is canceled out by the paying of monies to others. It is a transfer payment. If you dont support them, the same people get employed elsewhere and are still paid. It neutralizes.

This leaves only the suffering of the criminal as something to consider.

[Ericxihn]

It's better to think in terms of rule rather than act utilitarianism. The act may reduce utility overall, but the having the (enforced) rule in place gives enough utility to outweigh performing the act. If in fact having capital punishment deters crime, then the utility to society gained from the deterrent is greater than the utility lost by the murderer's family and friends.

That of course, depends on whether or not capital punishment is a deterrent, of course. My personal support for capital punishment when guilt is assured is much less rational. Sometimes, I read a description of a crime and think, "I hope hell exists, so this fucker can burn."

[Alyrium Denryle]

It's better to think in terms of rule rather than act utilitarianism. The act may reduce utility overall, but the having the (enforced) rule in place gives enough utility to outweigh performing the act. If in fact having capital punishment deters crime, then the utility to society gained from the deterrent is greater than the utility lost by the murderer's family and friends.

That of course, depends on whether or not capital punishment is a deterrent, of course. My personal support for capital punishment when guilt is assured is much less rational. Sometimes, I read a description of a crime and think, "I hope hell exists, so this fucker can burn."

Rule utilitarianism is extensionally equivalent to act utilitarianism.

[Formless]

And you don't understand the potential for abuse in this system because...?

As opposed to simply infiltrating opposition organizations with FBI agents or driving dissidents out of the country? We can already do that- this just makes it easier.

Irrelevant. I'm talking about the potential for abuse, not what we already do to enforce our laws.

But as it is you are giving the government the ultimate power to enforce its agenda, even if said agenda isn't necessarily lawful or ethical. And don't tell me that that can't happen, there are too many historical precedents of totalitarian governments doing similar things to throw out the possibility.

The ultimate power is life and death, not information.The government ALREADY has that power as by definition a government is a body that has the exclusive right to force in an area.

Irrelevant. They are still held accountable when they misuse that power, which is the concern I was citing. History suggests that if you let a government have too much power over you, the government tends to misuse it. Does the phrase "secret police" ring any bells? Or the phrase "who guards the guards?"

Besides, as this thread has shown, the government only has the right to kill in limited circumstances.

And that isn't taking into account privacy laws. Yes, you did say public spaces, but at what point do you cross the line? Should my front porch be considered a public space, so the government can watch me water my garden?

Correct.

And why, exactly, does the government have that right?

Does the utility/benefit of having any and all crimes recorded outweigh the social concerns of being spied on whenever you are out of the house? Like, how many people are going to be comfortable going on dates, buying entertainment, doing whatever when the government can see what you are doing at all times? Privacy extends outside your home, after all.

I'm pretty sure privacy has no utility value while being free from fear does. As it is, why should you be worried that the government can see you on dates, shopping or the like? If reality TV has shown us anything, it is that people are amazingly unconcerned sharing this with millions of strangers.

Being free from fear? You know who else used that rational for breaking privacy laws, right? (not to mention a whole slew of other offenses) I'm not like those people morons on "reality" tv. I'm much more paranoid.

Say I am planning on doing something that breaks taboo, but otherwise is neither against the law nor unethical. Say for sake of argument that I am gay (though I am not) and am going to come home with my husband. Remembering that the concern is with the potential for abuse and government corruption, they now know that I am gay and can use that information to oppress me. They would not be able to do that without that information. This may not be a reality right now, but it is a possibility that you would introduce.

And, really, what is the point in expending all these resources on creating a Digital Nanny state anyway when the same resources can be put to better use getting rid of poverty, fixing the environment, putting people into space, and damn well every other thing that is high on the agenda for the human race?

The same could be said for any other agenda. Do you have a point?

That your plan would be ungodly expensive when the money could be far better spent. Priorities, in other words. Yours suck.

Especially poverty, since crime is mostly an expression of social ills created by it? There is a reason the majority of convicts are from poor backgrounds, after all. A reason black people are disproportionately represented in the American prison system.

That and the fact that the drugs black men use have higher sentances than the ones white guys use. But even with lower poverty, crime will remain. In fact, crime helps contribute to poverty- stores in poor neighborhoods have to charge higher prices to cover for theft.

Irrelevant. Crime may remain, but at a reduced rate. Since reducing poverty is a noteworthy goal itself, your money is better used getting rid of poverty than putting cameras on every street corner. Your solution merely means more convictions. My way actually reduces crimes. After all, even with universal surveillance of public places, crime will still happen too. We both know there are people stupid/desperate enough to try it.

The problem with your "perfect solution to crime", as I see it, is that you are trying to attack the outcome of the problem rather than the root of it, thinking that a high tech brute force solution will solve all ills when it creates problems as well.

We do both, duh! See: geoengineering.

Assuming that we have the money to do both. Do you understand how expensive your solution would be? Not only do you have to install and maintenance your cameras and other surveillance equipment, you also have to pay people to watch it for crimes. That does not leave much money for more fruitful or necessary projects.

Please, tell me how this is a good idea. I really want to hear it.

Because being safe and secure has a high utility value and this goes a long way to achieving that.

At the expense of the populations privacy and security from totalitarian movements in your government. Why must we assume that the government wants the best for all its citizens at all times?

I don't see how that could be such a big deal, unless you're planning on burying a murder victim in your garden, or rape your date, or buying illegal porno, etc.

That was a bad example on my part. See the one above (the "if I were gay" argument). Or, what if you are a protester against a corrupt, totalitarian government? They can now identify you at will, and oppress you at their leisure. I'm not talking about risks coming from competent governments here, because they should have little need for such stringent measures in the first place. I'm talking about the risks of abuse this plan introduces.

Frankly, this proposal reminds one of the "bear patrol" from the Simpsons. Stew on that for a second.

[Samuel]

Irrelevant. I'm talking about the potential for abuse, not what we already do to enforce our laws.

They can already abuse power and get the same results- aren't you aware that the FBI infiltrated many "subversive" organizations? Not just the KKK, but antiwar movements and the like. All this will do is make their job easier- it doesn't give them the power to start arbitrarily arresting people.

Irrelevant. They are still held accountable when they misuse that power, which is the concern I was citing. History suggests that if you let a government have too much power over you, the government tends to misuse it. Does the phrase "secret police" ring any bells? Or the phrase "who guards the guards?"

What power? I haven't given the government any more power than they already have except with ID chips.

Secret Police are for political crimes which I haven't suggested.
Who guars the guards refers to the abuse of power. Great, what power?

Besides, as this thread has shown, the government only has the right to kill in limited circumstances.

No, the thread was about morality of the death penalty.

And why, exactly, does the government have that right?

Because that presumes that individuals have a right to privacy. They don't.

Being free from fear? You know who else used that rational for breaking privacy laws, right? (not to mention a whole slew of other offenses) I'm not like those people morons on "reality" tv. I'm much more paranoid.

FDR. Great- however, we don't base laws on your personal desires, but the groups. And as a group people get acclimated to being watched very easily, even when it is an actual human being. A camera is even easier. Or do you notice everytime you enter a 7/11?

Say I am planning on doing something that breaks taboo, but otherwise is neither against the law nor unethical. Say for sake of argument that I am gay (though I am not) and am going to come home with my husband. Remembering that the concern is with the potential for abuse and government corruption, they now know that I am gay and can use that information to oppress me. They would not be able to do that without that information. This may not be a reality right now, but it is a possibility that you would introduce.

I wanted to put cameras in homes... where? Strawman. As it is, how do you think the government arrested people for sodomy back in the day?

That your plan would be ungodly expensive when the money could be far better spent. Priorities, in other words. Yours suck.

Which is why the English have managed to partially adopt it, right?

Your solution merely means more convictions.

So if a person knows they will be caught, they commit crimes anyway? Right... criminals are that stupid you know.

After all, even with universal surveillance of public places, crime will still happen too. We both know there are people stupid/desperate enough to try it.

Yeah it will happen- once for each case, not again and again.

Not only do you have to install and maintenance your cameras and other surveillance equipment, you also have to pay people to watch it for crimes.

Well, aside from making programs to search through the files, you could just look them up when crimes occur.

At the expense of the populations privacy and security from totalitarian movements in your government. Why must we assume that the government wants the best for all its citizens at all times?

Being a member of the Nazi party or communists isn't illegal in the US.

As for assuming the best, I'm not. I just believe the police have a vested interest in reducing the crime rate.

Or, what if you are a protester against a corrupt, totalitarian government?

Than they get you with an informant and you get tortured.

I'm not talking about risks coming from competent governments here, because they should have little need for such stringent measures in the first place.

... the crime rate where I live is significantly greater than 0%. We had over 100 murders here last year.

I'm talking about the risks of abuse this plan introduces.

Show how this makes things possible that can't occur normally. It just makes survillence easier.

Frankly, this proposal reminds one of the "bear patrol" from the Simpsons. Stew on that for a second.

You watch that show too much?

[Akkleptos]

That was a bad example on my part. See the one above (the "if I were gay" argument). Or, what if you are a protester against a corrupt, totalitarian government? They can now identify you at will, and oppress you at their leisure. I'm not talking about risks coming from competent governments here, because they should have little need for such stringent measures in the first place. I'm talking about the risks of abuse this plan introduces.

I see your point. But, in my opinion, if you live in a corrupt and totalitarian government, you're in for quite a nasty ride anyway, Orwellian surveillance or not. In the 1984 examples, the problem is that the government considers it a crime to even think against the official doctrine and the regime. You don't need a 24/7, 100% coverage of public areas for it to become a nightmare, as demonstrated by Cambodia's pretty low-tech Khmer Rouge regime, or Castro's Cuba, North Korea, the USSR... Meaning that the surveillance is not the problem, but how the regime will use it. I'm with Samuel on this one.

On whether death penalty is moral, I think LordOskuro has a very good point we shouldn't overlook:

My point is that, regardless of how necessary putting someone down might be, the act of taking a life cannot ever be seen as something morally acceptable. Since the OP was about the morality of the death penalty, my opinion is that it is inherently immoral, but in certain situations, necessary, hence my point that it should be discussed due to its necessity rather than it's morality.

Once again, I come to the conclusion that the morality of it comes second to the matter of it being pratical.
To the same effect:

Firstly, I just want to point out that many of the arguments against the death penalty I've seen here are seriously flawed because of one simple thing: considering all human lives to have an equal intrinsical value, when the lives of murderers, child abusers, et al are clearly NOT worth the same as the lives of good doctors, children with a future to look forwards to, struggling hardworking single parents, et al. So, yes, irredeeemable criminals are still human, but it doesn't follow that their lives are worth exactly the same as those of valuable members of society. Failure to acknowledge this simple fact is terribly short-sighted, to say the least.

If I were a deontologist you might have a point. But suffering is suffering no matter where it comes from. So against my argument, you dont. Unless I want to delve back into the deontological argument against the death penalty derived from philosophical naturalism... And even then you dont have a point against my argument.

What if the criminals are executed in a painless way? Suffering might be more or less the same (is it, really? is the suffering of the mother of a murdered child the same as the suffering of the psycho criminal that killed the same child?), but I think it's possible that both morality AND practical thinking could agree that eliminating such a vicious killer would be in society's best interest (so, moral AND practical). One could bend over backwards on the moral implications on human rights, ethics, etc., but still society would be better off without him.

Yet again, if you don't want to execute criminals that arguably deserve it (the very issue being debated), I have to insist we take a look at the Ludovico Technique. It's what you use when all other psychological methods fail. Operant conditioning doesn't fail.