Death Penalty: Yea or Nay?

[Simon_Jester]

Simon, stop trying to argue Purnell's case for him for fucks sake. Its obnoxious, spams up this thread with irrelevant crap that Bakustra has to wade through, and misses the points Bakustra is trying to make. ALL OF THEM. Yes, all of them. This has nothing to do with the logic of your arguments either. Let me explain.

I'm trying to work back to the topic, but I want to at least come to some kind of agreement on the stuff that's been shitting up the thread.

At this point, I don't much care what Purnell thinks, and I'm done with that, but I do think the death penalty is an issue civilized people can disagree on, and I'm not sure whether it can be said to be objectively a good idea or a bad idea or if it depends on circumstances and individual cases.

And I wanted to walk back to that, while laying to rest some of the bigger stupidities that have been thrown around the thread- Purnell's misunderstandings of Bakustra (because he's so busy with what I called arguments of the first type that he doesn't care much for arguments of the second type) Bakustra's misunderstandings of Purnell (because having found an argument of the second type, he seizes on it and flings it at whatever it seems vaguely applicable to), and probably half the things they said that were understood correctly because it turned into that kind of shitfest.

So, again. My view on the death penalty is that I don't know. I don't think the moral arguments about it are universalizable, on that much I do agree with Purnell, because it's too complicated a question to be made that simple.

For. Fucks. Sake. This is beneath you, if all too much like you.

As to the rest, I think you're too busy throwing whatever at Purnell you expect to stick to really know what he thinks, but I don't really give a damn anymore. He'll probably be back, knowing him, and this will probably go on, knowing you two.

Hell. Maybe you're right.

[K. A. Pital]

Considering what has been said, I'd note that social order isn't an objective utility. Sometimes a breakdown of social order may be beneficial (see: revolution), etc. I think that it is possible to find a utilitarian benefit in the death penalty, because released recidivists who go on to rape/kill again and murder inside prisons are good arguments that keeping these people alive can produce gross negative utility. But arguing from social order is a bit... short-sighted.

[Bakustra]

Simon, I'll reformulate my argument to fit into the context of your post. Okay. I am not arguing against the existence of social order or the idea that some social order is necessary. I have never argued that, and I don't think that there's anybody informed who would argue against the necessity of a social order for society. I have argued that a formal government is not necessary for a society to form, but that is ancillary to the main argument here.

Where the disagreement lies is in the how-to of organizing society. Law serves to maintain social order. This is something that we all can agree upon. Now, Purnell is arguing for an objective and universalist social order, but you are agreeing that there is not a universal social order. So let me put it this way. My argument is that social order differs from society to society because of the differing values held by each society. These generally become translated into various rights and privileges within the context of law and are also usually assigned protections. So, the question is, is this the chicken or the egg? Does the incorporation within the social order come first, or the change in values? I don't particularly care one way or the other, but I think that acknowledging these values is important and that is part of why I object to Purnell's argument.

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

Let's take a look at how the second part of your post evolved. I mentioned that I felt that imprisonment was dehumanizing by discouraging sympathy for the imprisoned and the guilty in general. The immediate response you gave was taken under the assumption that any criticism must mean that the critic thinks that the thing should be abolished. Unsurprising, given the subject and how the conversation was progressing. Well, I was fairly lenient, since I was speaking in general. If I were speaking about the US system specifically, I would have been far harsher.

But- my problem is not so much with imprisonment as with the idea of retributive justice. Prison wouldn't be as bad if our system weren't dependent on the idea of punishment being the most important part of justice.

Let's take the average crook. She, one Jane Doe, has been sentenced to five years on dealing, since she was in a zero-tolerance state and caught with too much weed. After those five years, even assuming she got sent to Camp Cupcake thanks to an administrative mix-up, she'll find it near-impossible to get hired anywhere, no matter how far she pursues her education. If she went to a far more idealistic prison than in reality, she'd simply end up with a couple of useful criminal skills as well. If she went to an actual American prison, then she'd come out with a gang membership, some tattoos to keep her out of even the low-level jobs a felon could afford, and almost certainly recurring trauma from being raped and assaulted by fellow inmates and the guards (and a John Doe would have a one in five chance of being raped), let alone the psychological aftereffects of prison. In any of these cases, her best option is crime- well-paying work will be nearly impossible to get, and adopting a false identity to get a job still counts as a crime. Our "justice" system took this young woman with a mild drug habit and turned her into somebody encouraged into criminality to make a living, and even if she avoids that, she'll still end up in a life of poverty.

It takes plenty of people that commit mild crimes like purse snatchings or pickpocketing and converts them into lifelong criminals. Currently about 2.3 million people are incarcerated right now, with an addition 4 million paroled or on probation. About 1.5 million of that 2.3 are in prison, and two-thirds be rearrested after getting out, with about half of the total going back to prison. That means that about 750,000 of those people, at a minimum, will return to crime. About 60% of those 2.3 million are nonviolent first offenders or recidivists. Almost 1% of our population is incarcerated at any given time. What a fucking waste.

In addition, even assuming that they somehow get a chance at a good job, the average sentence for a case that went to trial is in the neighborhood of 13 years, and even plea-bargained cases get an average of 4 1/2 years. Any skills the crook has are likely to have atrophied during that time period, meaning that they're not going to be all that good at their job, especially with all the health concerns they're likely to have. These are not accidents. These are deliberate consequences or forseeable second-order consequences of this system, and they are justified on the grounds that crooks are crooks, the criminal mind, et cetera, forming self-fulfilling prophecies.

These were a lot of words, but suffice it to say that I think that our current method of retributive justice does nothing to help people, does little to prevent crime, and wastes the talents of millions. I think that adopting a more restorative approach to justice that focused on rehabilitating and resocializing the convicted would avoid many of these problems. What do you think?

[Formless]

I'm trying to work back to the topic, but I want to at least come to some kind of agreement on the stuff that's been shitting up the thread.

At this point, I don't much care what Purnell thinks, and I'm done with that, but I do think the death penalty is an issue civilized people can disagree on, and I'm not sure whether it can be said to be objectively a good idea or a bad idea or if it depends on circumstances and individual cases.

Agreed, and thank you. Your pompousness levels have dropped by 15%.

As to the rest, I think you're too busy throwing whatever at Purnell you expect to stick to really know what he thinks, but I don't really give a damn anymore. He'll probably be back, knowing him, and this will probably go on, knowing you two.

I was trying elucidate a more basic disagreement, since if you look back Purnell and I are actually on the same page about the death penalty as its practiced (that is, our legal system is too unreliable ATM to be allowed to practice it) * . But the devil is in the details, you know? He thinks moral concerns are irrelevant, I think they are paramount, for starters. For another, he seems to have a more "tough on crime" attitude than I am comfortable with, for many reasons. I haven't yet seen him deny any of the beliefs I attribute to him, even if he rejects the labels (though again, I have mostly skimmed the thread since dropping out on the third page).

* emphasis on was-- I really don't think anyone is going to get through to him, so why waste the keystrokes?

[Knife]

Knife? What are you even talking about specifically?

The shitfest this thread has become while you and Baskura try your hardest to win by screaming the loudest. Prunell has said he isn't for current forms of death penalty, which coincides with your views. The contention, minus nitpicks, is you believe that all beings have an inherent right to life, and he argues a pretty convincing otherwise.

Its not enough to just say "these guys grasp simple concepts" when you don't say which concepts you are referring to.

Dude, I don't have to quote various excerpts of the threat to make a generalized summary of it. You thinking I do is just as silly.

You could be referring to legal concepts; you could be referring to moral concepts. I don't know, you've left out the part of the message that tells me what you mean. I could argue either point, but until I know which point... its kinda pointless, you know?

Honesty, your conduct is the silliest. But, that is subjective so take it with a grain of salt and ignore it as you will.

Its nice you think I'm elitist about having an intelligent opinion. That's a vote of confidence, I'd say.

lol. your silliness peeking out again. You've spent a considerable amount of time preening about how right you are and how wrong Prunell is without actually proving it. That's not intelligent, nor is your insistence that you are intelligent without any proof of it. In fact, my whole purpose of posting in this thread was to point out how much bullshit your assumption of how right you are and how wrong he is... is.

Or do you mean to say that all opinions are worth listening to? Again, that whole clarity issue.

LoL, making assumptions again. I mean to say your arguments suck. That, whether or not I agree with Prunell, is beyond the point that he has actually made an argument that you've failed miserably to counter besides bullshit. Step up son, why is his mechanism of social order wrong, let alone his definition of murder?

(for the record, Simon is intelligent but also a pompous ass. Yes, I'm an equal opportunity mudslinger. Be glad I've got nothing on you yet)

Hahahaha. Kiddo, I've been yelled at by professionals. You stringing together cuss words doesn't phase me, nor any nerdy version thereof. You're acting like a petulant teenager and I'm curious if you can actually make an argument instead of all the preening and posturing you've been doing? Prunell has offered a system in which, whether you believe it or not, makes tentative sense and I've seen jack shit from you about how it is wrong, just you insisting how wrong he is. As a viewer, I want to know if all you have is bullshit or if you have something to change my mind.

Isn't the the whole reason for debate, all us out in the gallery to change our minds, not with your sophistry, but with the weight of your argument?

Edit: fixed a quote tag, or two.

[Formless]

The shitfest this thread has become while you and Baskura try your hardest to win by screaming the loudest. Prunell has said he isn't for current forms of death penalty, which coincides with your views. The contention, minus nitpicks, is you believe that all beings have an inherent right to life, and he argues a pretty convincing otherwise.

I was the one to back off from the argument when it looked like nothing good could come out of it. How is that "trying to shout the loudest"?

Also, that you are apparently convinced by Begging the Question fallacies is your problem.

Dude, I don't have to quote various excerpts of the threat to make a generalized summary of it. You thinking I do is just as silly.

Oh, okay, I was assuming you weren't just spamming an already inflated thread. My mistake.

Step up son, why is his mechanism of social order wrong, let alone his definition of murder?

1) His definition of the social order seems to be curiously vacuous. As in, it doesn't seem to lead anywhere. As in, there doesn't seem to be any way of identifying when something is wrong with the social order itself, because it seems to exist to fulfill its own existence. Not hard.

2) His definition of murder follows only from the first definition, which is patiently lacking. You might also notice that along the way he decided to strawmander me by conflating my definition of murder with my definition of manslaughter, which as it happens coincides with the law. All murder is killing, not all killing is murder, and not all murder is wrong. And yes, in the spirit of the law all of this has to do with the moral concept of murder, not the legal one. Not hard.

Seriously? These are the big convincing arguments you identify in Purnell's posts?

[Simon_Jester]

Considering what has been said, I'd note that social order isn't an objective utility. Sometimes a breakdown of social order may be beneficial (see: revolution), etc. I think that it is possible to find a utilitarian benefit in the death penalty, because released recidivists who go on to rape/kill again and murder inside prisons are good arguments that keeping these people alive can produce gross negative utility. But arguing from social order is a bit... short-sighted.

A brief breakdown in social order can be beneficial. But a prolonged breakdown, one that is not followed in short order by reconstruction of a new order, isn't beneficial. This is why parties of "permanent revolution" tend to cause so much unnecessary destruction: they aren't capable of recognizing when they've won, when it's time to stop trying to destroy the bits of the state they don't like and concentrate on the more complex task of building a new one.

So "we have to keep doing what we're doing to preserve the social order" is a bad argument. But "we have to do something that will preserve a social order" is not.

These were a lot of words, but suffice it to say that I think that our current method of retributive justice does nothing to help people, does little to prevent crime, and wastes the talents of millions. I think that adopting a more restorative approach to justice that focused on rehabilitating and resocializing the convicted would avoid many of these problems. What do you think?

I think that a method of neutralizing prisoners that, statistically speaking, makes them worse fails its primary purpose and doesn't serve the "social order" thing; it does not do its own job. Which is bad.

But this is obvious; condemnations of the US penal system are two for a penny around here, and I don't really see the point of continuing with this one. What was the purpose of the exercise again?

I was trying elucidate a more basic disagreement, since if you look back Purnell and I are actually on the same page about the death penalty as its practiced (that is, our legal system is too unreliable ATM to be allowed to practice it) * . But the devil is in the details, you know? He thinks moral concerns are irrelevant, I think they are paramount, for starters. For another, he seems to have a more "tough on crime" attitude than I am comfortable with, for many reasons. I haven't yet seen him deny any of the beliefs I attribute to him, even if he rejects the labels...

I think that's because Knife, and Purnell, are right about one big thing: you and Bakustra have been throwing semi-random points of disagreement at Purnell willy-nilly, which left you without a coherent position for a long time.

You are now starting to remedy this, but the posts we saw on Page Four are sheer fucking chaos, if you look at them as if they were intended to present some logical conclusion.

You can call me pompous if you like, but at least I try to put together an argument on threads like this, rather than just slinging mud and hoping enough of it will stick that I can walk away with "win!" credit.

[Knife]

*snip* same old same old

LoL, silliness.

1) His definition of the social order seems to be curiously vacuous. As in, it doesn't seem to lead anywhere.

An artificial construct to impose order for the benifit of society doesn't lead anywhere?

As in, there doesn't seem to be any way of identifying when something is wrong with the social order itself, because it seems to exist to fulfill its own existence. Not hard.

LoL, you love pointing out logical fallacies, but yours seems to be black and white fallacy. By definition, if social order to fulfill it's own existence proliferates a society, then it is indeed successful by it's very own rules. You may disagree with the taste of that fact, but logically there is nothing wrong with it. Any construct that proliferates it's own success is by definition of a success. Now if you want to add in other rules, and feel free to do so as long as you describe your mechanism, to judge by go ahead, but we should get to judge them by their own merits and not just by you saying so.

2) His definition of murder follows only from the first definition, which is patiently lacking.

So toss up your definition. I'll also note he tossed up a citation for his, yours is curiously missing. You might disagree with his definition, but your say so isn't as good as his Dictionary.

You might also notice that along the way he decided to strawmander me by conflating my definition of murder with my definition of manslaughter, which as it happens coincides with the law. All murder is killing, not all killing is murder, and not all murder is wrong. And yes, in the spirit of the law all of this has to do with the moral concept of murder, not the legal one. Not hard.

Nope, you and Baskura have implied and relied on vague concepts of such. Never seen an actual rebuttal to his argument. He has also stated that moral concepts rely specifically on the needs of a society, to which you have not answered but still vaguely argue you're right about.

Seriously? These are the big convincing arguments you identify in Purnell's posts?

LoL, and yet you can't come up with one yourself. Don't you just hate it when someone attacks you with vague generalities? Kind of silly huh?

[Knife]

I snipped the part of your post where you say in basic sense you agree on theory/practice of the death penalty. So credit where credit is due, but I have little to imput on that.

. But the devil is in the details, you know? He thinks moral concerns are irrelevant, I think they are paramount, for starters.

He can speak for himself, but reading the thread; he in fact does not think moral concerns are irrelevant. Just not the end all you seem to be implying they are. His argument is that different societies create different morals to fit their societies. Some basic morals tend to pop up from culture to culture and thus have a 'universal' bent to them, but that isn't the same as an all encompassing moral standing.

For another, he seems to have a more "tough on crime" attitude than I am comfortable with, for many reasons. I haven't yet seen him deny any of the beliefs I attribute to him, even if he rejects the labels...

LoL, so far I've seen him challenge certain beliefs you and others have, and you can't or won't do a good job of explaining why, and so a lot of anger and shit throwing is coming out.

[Formless]

I think that's because Knife, and Purnell, are right about one big thing: you and Bakustra have been throwing semi-random points of disagreement at Purnell willy-nilly, which left you without a coherent position for a long time.

You are now starting to remedy this, but the posts we saw on Page Four are sheer fucking chaos, if you look at them as if they were intended to present some logical conclusion.

You can call me pompous if you like, but at least I try to put together an argument on threads like this, rather than just slinging mud and hoping enough of it will stick that I can walk away with "win!" credit.

Okay, cut this crap out. Page four of this thread contains no posts by me, so I would appreciate it if you stopped trying to act like I am responsible for Bakustra's various walls of text.

Also, calling you pompous was halfway towards being a joke. Halfway, you are climbing back up the scale pretty fast.

LoL, you love pointing out logical fallacies, but yours seems to be black and white fallacy. By definition, if social order to fulfill it's own existence proliferates a society, then it is indeed successful by it's very own rules. You may disagree with the taste of that fact, but logically there is nothing wrong with it. Any construct that proliferates it's own success is by definition of a success. Now if you want to add in other rules, and feel free to do so as long as you describe your mechanism, to judge by go ahead, but we should get to judge them by their own merits and not just by you saying so.

Knife, what the fuck are you trying to prove? Seriously, are you just here to troll? To prove how much smug you can radiate? I mean, Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, I cannot believe anyone would honestly grant that definition who wasn't just here to stir up even more shit. A self fulfilling social order could be just about any goddamn order you please, including ones in which anyone who practices reason are automatically put to death or basic human drives and emotions are suppressed. Sound like any enduring social orders you know of? This is a problem, because we're talking about human societies here. Human concerns (including moral ones) must be of higher importance than social order by simple matter of causality. We create social order: it serves us, not itself. Or at least whichever humans happen to have power at any given moment. But whatever, they too are human.

Of course, its a small step from there to realizing the basic concept of human equality, because equality is the logical default state. We all have roughly the same needs, the same capacity for pain and pleasure, even if we have different capacities in terms of skills or specialties. Again, observable facts.

What part of this is hard? That I am the one saying it, rather than someone you like?

So toss up your definition. I'll also note he tossed up a citation for his, yours is curiously missing.

Okay, you were either lying when you said you read the thread or you are illiterate. Which is it?

Also, if you knew anything about the law you would know that the definition of murder is the intentional killing of another human being (unintentional killing being manslaughter).

I know, I know, not the definition the courts use. If I have to explain one more goddamn time that I am talking about morality, or if you prefer the spirit of the law, I am going to chalk it up to you being here to troll.

He can speak for himself, but reading the thread; he in fact does not think moral concerns are irrelevant. Just not the end all you seem to be implying they are. His argument is that different societies create different morals to fit their societies. Some basic morals tend to pop up from culture to culture and thus have a 'universal' bent to them, but that isn't the same as an all encompassing moral standing.

The existence of different moral codes could just as easily be explained by the fact that distance and historical isolation of different societies meant that each had to deal with the same basic problems independently as that there is no objective moral code. In other words, there are many right ways to go about solving moral problems, and by implication many wrong ways as well. Objectivity in ethics is preserved. Truth and objectivity need not come in one-size fits all like it does with the laws of physics.

[MarshalPurnell]

Misrepresentations by Bakustra and Formless continue, to my great lack of surprise. I have been quite consistent in maintaining my position throughout the thread, though I regret getting angry earlier since that just enabled the tactics they've been using. In any case, to reiterate once more on a couple of the most important misrepresentations;

The law primarily exists to preserve social order. The mechanisms of why and how I have already explained from an instrumentalist perspective. This is not an especially ideological position but rather an attempt to model how things actually are, within the imperfect confines of a theoretical model. In any case the nature of modern law makes it clear that crimes are prosecuted as violations of the public peace, a state of order decreed by the sovereign power of the state and enforced by the same. Blackstone held out three reasons for the status of murder as an offense; it was a violation of morality, it was a breach of the King's Peace, and it subverted the social order.

Of those reasons the first is troublesome to a modern society because the morality in question was not an abstracted universal set of basic morals, but rather a particular moral law, that of Christianity. A modern, diverse, secular society should not appeal to a particular moral code to justify its laws. People of course try to influence the law along directions indicated by their religion, all the time, and I have not once argued that such should be banned or repressed. I have however held out the rational-basis test on social order as a way to justify such laws as are necessary and to weed out those which are not. In so far as I have advocated anything at all, this is it; that laws should be first and foremost justified on meeting some sort of objective need to maintain public order rather than by divine sanction, or other subjective moral reasoning. In addition I formulated my concept of "rights" as a negative, the absence of interference, rather than as a positive of "formal recognition" or "state protection," a concept that if Bakustra were really familiar with social contract theory in any case he would be well aware of. That is consistent with the existence of such rights in the theoretical system, and allows for the social acceptance of meme-clusters called rights without a necessary formalization of such which before the 19th century most such rights in most countries never had.

As far as judging what a desirable social order is, I have consistently held to the utilitarian approach of judging the outcomes of different societies. I recognize an inherent distinction between some universal basics of what public order requires, and the broader conceptions of how society should ideally be organized, as held by different cultural and national groups. I am reluctant to simply declare that one vision is better than another on moral grounds precisely because those grounds are subjective and therefore can be disagreed with. In an extreme case, for example, one might disagree that Iran is worse off than America for lacking freedom of speech by saying that punishing blasphemers is the will of God. Such a person will not be convinced by the UN Charter of Human Rights, or so on. But the great discrepancy between the state of socioeconomics between the two strongly suggests that one social order is a lot healthier for the people who make it up than the other- a very mild utilitarian measure, but since the socioeconomics are not subjective they are a firm basis for comparison. And of course to go further, since we see the US and many other countries are quite fine without repressing the expression of their citizens to a degree that the PRC does, we might doubt the PRC's restrictions are necessary. Pending, of course, some really convincing reason why social conditions in the PRC require it to be done. Note that "freedom of speech isn't an Asian value" doesn't work as a reason because you are trying to justify the presence of restrictions rather than the absence of a right.

I have also constantly pointed out where real world issues get in the way of a fully successful theoretical model. By noting, for example, that states formed as hierarchical power structures designed to further the interests of a ruling class. By explaining the reality of rights as social compromises between elite factions, and between the elite and society below, represented in the law by either a null space or affirmative actions (such as penalizing discrimination to promote equality). I cannot seriously be accused of holding to any sort of inflexible dogmatic vision; rather such accusations, gross distortions of my positions, and outright absurd attributions as have been tossed around in that regard, and others, were simply part of an unending stream of attacks designed to obscure the issues at hand and the lack of any substantive argument by those responsible.

[Versac]

Also, if you knew anything about the law you would know that the definition of murder is the intentional killing of another human being (unintentional killing being manslaughter).

I know, I know, not the definition the courts use. If I have to explain one more goddamn time that I am talking about morality, or if you prefer the spirit of the law, I am going to chalk it up to you being here to troll.

I'm sorry, but did you just strip a word of its formal, legal, and historical definitions so that you could appropriate it for your moral framework? The word's meant 'unlawful killing' all the way back to Old English, circa 14th century. If you want to use it in place of the emotionally weaker manslaughter (which, btw, CAN be intentional, and that murder/manslaughter distinction goes back to 7th century B.C.E.) you'd better have one hell of a justification.

Of those reasons the first is troublesome to a modern society because the morality in question was not an abstracted universal set of basic morals, but rather a particular moral law, that of Christianity. A modern, diverse, secular society should not appeal to a particular moral code to justify its laws. People of course try to influence the law along directions indicated by their religion, all the time, and I have not once argued that such should be banned or repressed. I have however held out the rational-basis test on social order as a way to justify such laws as are necessary and to weed out those which are not. In so far as I have advocated anything at all, this is it; that laws should be first and foremost justified on meeting some sort of objective need to maintain public order rather than by divine sanction, or other subjective moral reasoning. In addition I formulated my concept of "rights" as a negative, the absence of interference, rather than as a positive of "formal recognition" or "state protection," a concept that if Bakustra were really familiar with social contract theory in any case he would be well aware of. That is consistent with the existence of such rights in the theoretical system, and allows for the social acceptance of meme-clusters called rights without a necessary formalization of such which before the 19th century most such rights in most countries never had.

Some things, such as life and personal freedom, tend to be held as morally desirable in and of themselves across the majority of modern moral codes. Do you hold any similar things to be axiomatically good? If so, would not the collection of such things be a moral code itself?

[Formless]

I'm sorry, but did you just strip a word of its formal, legal, and historical definitions so that you could appropriate it for your moral framework? The word's meant 'unlawful killing' all the way back to Old English, circa 14th century. If you want to use it in place of the emotionally weaker manslaughter (which, btw, CAN be intentional, and that murder/manslaughter distinction goes back to 7th century B.C.E.) you'd better have one hell of a justification.

Read a bible some time. Or any number of other religious texts. Or the code of Hammurabbi. The concept is far older than English society, it isn't even a European invention.

If you really want to get pedantic, just go ahead and substitute the word homicide. Most people aren't so technical or know the difference, so I go with the colloquial usage. It matters little either way unless you're actually in court and need to know what you are being charged with.

[Hamstray]

Some things, such as life and personal freedom, tend to be held as morally desirable in and of themselves across the majority of modern moral codes. Do you hold any similar things to be axiomatically good? If so, would not the collection of such things be a moral code itself?

In order to there not being another circular argumentation about how we are already denying people their rights anyways by locking them up, I would like to proposition that: locking people up is immoral as well, even though it sometimes is legally necessary to protect the rights of others. Whether or not it is as immoral as executing them is probably subjective since there probably isn't a general consensus whether the right to life or freedom is valued more, but non the less both are immoral.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm sorry, but did you just strip a word of its formal, legal, and historical definitions so that you could appropriate it for your moral framework? The word's meant 'unlawful killing' all the way back to Old English, circa 14th century. If you want to use it in place of the emotionally weaker manslaughter (which, btw, CAN be intentional, and that murder/manslaughter distinction goes back to 7th century B.C.E.) you'd better have one hell of a justification.

Read a bible some time. Or any number of other religious texts. Or the code of Hammurabbi. The concept is far older than English society, it isn't even a European invention.

Citation needed.

A number of crimes in Hammurabi's Code are punishable by death- so are a number of crimes in the Old Testament, which is harsher than Hammurabi in most respects.

This would not be possible if the legal documents* in question didn't draw a distinction between "lawful killing," and "unlawful killing. For example, from 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 the builder shall be put to death."**

However, the state's executioners are not themselves liable to being killed for the crime of killing the builder.

*(insofar as the Old Testament is a legal document because it lays down laws)
**I picked one of the more... reasonable-ish laws in the Code; there are others which today we would deem unconscionably harsh.

So you are flat out lying by trying to say "Also, if you knew anything about the law you would know that the definition of murder is the intentional killing of another human being (unintentional killing being manslaughter). Lawful murder is still fucking murder." When someone is talking to you

You are also flat out lying about the Bible or the Code of Hammurabi failing to distinguish between lawful and unlawful killing.

Formless, this is what people have been talking about: for the duration of this argument, you and Bakustra have been doing a great deal of bullshitting: generating mountains of spurious arguments and fake accusations, seemingly indifferent to whether those arguments and accusations are true. This has prevented you from making a coherent argument, in favor of adopting a contrarian position against all comers that hinges very heavily on a series of extremely dubious statements you've made. When challenged on these statements, arguments, and accusations, you try to cover yourself with more bullshit: someone asks "did you just strip a word of its historical definitions and context so you could tell us what the spirit of the law is?" you reply by saying "go look in these documents" which don't contain anything of use to your case.

Why? What's the point of making such a bad bluff? I think you're doing it because you are (note definitions in the wiki article) bullshitting: you are generating large amounts of 'argument,' but it is not important to you whether the individual arguments are true or false, because the general proposition is something like "X, therefore I am right and you are wrong," and you're more interested in the "I am right and you are wrong" bit than in "X."

This is an extremely poor debating style.

Any sense you've made has been drowned out under the weight of nonsense, and most of the sense you've made took the form of facile condemnations of the American judicial system- which, as I noted earlier, are two for a penny around here; you don't need to have all that many facts straight in your head to do it, so you don't get a lot of credit for it.

[AMT]

AMT, I think the real point is that whether you'd rather be dead or in prison forever (or until some unknown and hostile person decides to let you out) is... well, let's call it a matter of opinion. Different people may believe different things on this subject; it's not a trivial choice in every case where we might have to make it.

It'd be different if the prisoner chooses execution over incarceration, if they are of sound mind and body.

And that's leaving aside the question of whether a particular individual prisoner presents a big enough hazard, or a small enough chance of rehabilitation/proof of innocence.

It's not clear-cut, is all I have to say.

Exactly. Cases are never clear cut. Execution is however, very clear cut once applied. So why use a terminal solution on an admittedly muddy situation?

That may be, but if someone murders 30 people, why should they be given an opportunity for remorse or rehabilitation?

Because helping someone realize their errors while still punishing them is better than simply punishing them?
Perhaps with their remorse and rehabilitation they can help others not make the mistakes they did, the life choices they did.

The second part of that argument is a little different - why is locking people up morally superior to other punishments. I know you're not arguing this part, but I'm mentioning it anyway because the two are related. I don't think that imprisonment is a morally superior punishment - it's certainly more reversible, but the moral element is debatable.

As stated before, it's morally superior compared to execution because it allows one to have the chance for rehabilitation. Is it morally superior to other punishments? It depends on the punishment. There are so many choices, ranging from counseling to torture or execution, that a blanket statement can't be made of it, and why we shouldn't muddy the waters as we're discussing execution itself, beyond perhaps looking at those punishments in lieu of execution.

[Big Phil]

That may be, but if someone murders 30 people, why should they be given an opportunity for remorse or rehabilitation?

Because helping someone realize their errors while still punishing them is better than simply punishing them?
Perhaps with their remorse and rehabilitation they can help others not make the mistakes they did, the life choices they did.

What if their victims' or their families' simply want the guilty punished. They don't want remorse or rehabilitation; does that make a difference?

Let's say the person is rehabilitated in two years - should they still be locked in prison for the rest of their life even though they're truly remorseful and rehabilitated after only two years?

What if they're never rehabilitated; instead they're a sociopath whole instead goes on to commit yet more murders while in prison; why should they not be put to death? Or for that matter, why should someone without remorse or the possibility of rehabilitation be given the opportunity for remorse or rehabilitation? Why not just stick them in a deep hole and toss food down every couple of days?

[Versac]

I'm sorry, but did you just strip a word of its formal, legal, and historical definitions so that you could appropriate it for your moral framework? The word's meant 'unlawful killing' all the way back to Old English, circa 14th century. If you want to use it in place of the emotionally weaker manslaughter (which, btw, CAN be intentional, and that murder/manslaughter distinction goes back to 7th century B.C.E.) you'd better have one hell of a justification.

Read a bible some time. Or any number of other religious texts. Or the code of Hammurabbi. The concept is far older than English society, it isn't even a European invention.

Citation needed.

A number of crimes in Hammurabi's Code are punishable by death- so are a number of crimes in the Old Testament, which is harsher than Hammurabi in most respects.

This would not be possible if the legal documents* in question didn't draw a distinction between "lawful killing," and "unlawful killing. For example, from 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 the builder shall be put to death."**

However, the state's executioners are not themselves liable to being killed for the crime of killing the builder.

*(insofar as the Old Testament is a legal document because it lays down laws)
**I picked one of the more... reasonable-ish laws in the Code; there are others which today we would deem unconscionably harsh.

So you are flat out lying by trying to say "Also, if you knew anything about the law you would know that the definition of murder is the intentional killing of another human being (unintentional killing being manslaughter). Lawful murder is still fucking murder." When someone is talking to you

You are also flat out lying about the Bible or the Code of Hammurabi failing to distinguish between lawful and unlawful killing.

What do you know, you happened to pick one of my favorite pieces of ancient history, Formless, so I'm actually willing to check my notes. The majority of the Code is devoted to price fixing, but there is a lot of capital punishment in there, and a few interesting distinctions. Simon's quoted #229 up there, differentiating negligence from malice. In a similar vein is #218, delineating and punishing malpractice. Note that it isn't limited to 'the patient dies', but to 'the patient dies during risky surgery'. Most damningly for you case, however, is #207, an addition to #206: "[If during a quarrel one man strike another and wound him, then he shall swear, "I did not injure him wittingly," and pay the physicians.] If the man die of his wound, he shall swear similarly, and if he (the deceased) was a free-born man, he shall pay half a mina in money." Holy shit, that looks like a differentiation between murder and voluntary manslaughter! (First and second degree murder, to use a set of modern terminology.) And not only that, voluntary manslaughter is punished less harshly than intentionally knocking out a tooth!

As for your Bible comment, I'm not reading through multiple versions of a million+ word document to provide you with your cite. You may wish to start here, though, lest you make the mistake I'm pretty sure you've already made: wiki link.

[Simon_Jester]

I suspect that in practical application, the 'voluntary manslaughter' case in Hammurabi's Code might be something you'd be hard pressed to invoke in your own defense, unless you had witnesses or something. But that's just me intuiting.

[Versac]

I suspect that in practical application, the 'voluntary manslaughter' case in Hammurabi's Code might be something you'd be hard pressed to invoke in your own defense, unless you had witnesses or something. But that's just me intuiting.

One would imagine so, but it's somewhat odd that the law in question doesn't mention witnesses. Procedure for bringing witnesses into a case are relatively well-established in #9-13, dealing with the purchase of stolen property. Perhaps the nuances of the word translated into 'quarrel' involve it being public; my Akkadian's understandably nonexistent.

[Bakustra]

Knife, apparently you think that if people come to the same conclusions, they have nothing to criticize each other for. That's quite faulty in and of itself, but if you read carefully, you'd realize that I've never articulated a position on the death penalty beyond saying that I find one particular argument problematic to apply. I am criticizing the thinking and ideology of Purnell, and that is what I have done from my first post in this thread. I find it ridden with flaws, self-contradictory, and either horrific or useless. Purnell admits in his latest post that he cannot distinguish between societies without using some measure outside of his theory to conclude which is better or worse. At the very least, the conception of justice gets rid of the idiotic rigmarole between libertarianism and statism that Purnell has to use to conclude that, by his theory, the PRC's lack of protection of free speech is unnecessary. But maybe you find that persuasive.

Purnell also denies that there are such things as universal morals. I agree with him on that, but complaining about people misrepresenting someone while mentally translating their argument into a more pleasant one, as you and Simon both have done, is quite ironic.

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

Simon, am I to take by your addressing only the second part of my post that you agree with the first part, or that you disagree but don't want to argue about it, or that you don't care, or what? You asked me to clarify my thoughts on imprisonment further, and I gave you my reasoning. I'm sorry that I'm passionate about it.

Also, Simon, you might as well call me a fucker (or whatever nicety of criticism you prefer) directly, instead of doing so while addressing Formless. I've not called you on my challenge earlier because, despite what you appear to think, I prefer civil conversation and discussion. My hostility to Purnell is because he started out by, when I questioned him on the specifics of his beliefs, acted incredulous that anybody might do so, strawmanned me immediately afterward, and continued to be quite nasty. I, not being of the school of Fictional Martin Luther King Jr., decided that trying to be nice to such an asshole was not particularly likely to be productive.

If you think that that's perfectly acceptable behavior but mine is quite unreasonable, the only conclusion is that I have to start pretending that everything I say is self-evident in order for you to provide much more reasonable anti-strawmen of my arguments for me to crib from.

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

Purnell, are you going to justify why this negative formulation of lack of interference from government is better than a positive formulation of formal protection? I brought up lynching for a reason, as while the libertarian ideology from which you draw that tends to minimize this, rights can be infringed upon by ordinary citizens as well as the government. In other words, if you formulate rights solely as a negative of government interference, then a man getting lynched has not had his right to life infringed upon, and a man being beaten for being a Communist has not had his freedom of expression infringed upon either! This is ignoring rights that cannot be formulated with a negative- the right to contract is only meaningful if the contract's terms can be enforced upon both parties! If it's not necessary to formulate rights, only to avoid infringing upon them, then why do so many constitutions formally acknowledge them? Your argument fails descriptively on those grounds. I'm sure that you or your defenders will complain that this paragraph was just a bunch of stuff, but my point is that there are a number of flaws with your approach to rights.

Seeing as you've decided to mimic Simon by using utilitarianism, how can you use a subjective moral system to evaluate the consequences of what you claim to be an objective, universal system of social order, but disallow it for any other relationship to law? In other words, why allow utility in some cases and not in others? Simon misunderstood you as advocating utility in general with regards to the law, but you were not. Are you abandoning what you said earlier? That would seem to be the case, because you're admitting that what constitutes the social order varies from place to place. But you should acknowledge that, then, instead of saying that I'm strawmanning you with your own arguments!

Evaluating on socioeconomic status is tricky, especially since there are so many ways to measure it. Would you use median income, or mean income, or inflation, or a combination of economic factors? Because the US comes out very differently using different measures. But it also ignores intangibles. Consider the case that I brought up earlier. How do you evaluate whether Canada or the US is better at free speech between Canada's sharper restrictions on hate speech and the US's lack of the same? If we fully acknowledge the subjectivity of whether certain social orders are better or not, then it seems that your primary objection to the incorporation of morality, justice, et al into the law is fallen. Because if the question is between whether the social order would be better with this level of protection or that for the freedom of the press, then justice is as valid as socioeconomic status for argumentation and your beliefs falter. But if you don't want to surrender this, explain how an objective approach to the highest social order can be constructed, given subtle differences between various developed nations.

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

Versac, I realize that Formless is digging his heels in and being unreasonable, but is it really crucial to act as the Word Usage Police to make sure that the legal uses of homicide, murder, and manslaughter are enforced? If you've got a good reason, then I'll subside, but I just don't think that it's necessarily conducive to free discussion.

[General Mung Beans]

Considering what has been said, I'd note that social order isn't an objective utility. Sometimes a breakdown of social order may be beneficial (see: revolution), etc. I think that it is possible to find a utilitarian benefit in the death penalty, because released recidivists who go on to rape/kill again and murder inside prisons are good arguments that keeping these people alive can produce gross negative utility. But arguing from social order is a bit... short-sighted.

Revolutions which resulted in the breakdown of the social order rarely had good results (ie Russia or China). And for that matter revolutions can occur without complete collapse of social order, for instance the American Revolution which was comparatively quite successful.

[AMT]

That may be, but if someone murders 30 people, why should they be given an opportunity for remorse or rehabilitation?

Because helping someone realize their errors while still punishing them is better than simply punishing them?
Perhaps with their remorse and rehabilitation they can help others not make the mistakes they did, the life choices they did.

What if their victims' or their families' simply want the guilty punished. They don't want remorse or rehabilitation; does that make a difference?

I would say that we don't levy punishment based on what the family wants. We levy it based on the law.

Let's say the person is rehabilitated in two years - should they still be locked in prison for the rest of their life even though they're truly remorseful and rehabilitated after only two years?

What if they're never rehabilitated; instead they're a sociopath whole instead goes on to commit yet more murders while in prison; why should they not be put to death?

Because there are other options out there, as stated before.

Or for that matter, why should someone without remorse or the possibility of rehabilitation be given the opportunity for remorse or rehabilitation? Why not just stick them in a deep hole and toss food down every couple of days?

Because we're better then that.

[Formless]

*snip accusations of lying/selective quotation*

*snip pedantry/selective quotation*

I know, I know, not the definition the courts use. If I have to explain one more goddamn time that I am talking about morality, or if you prefer the spirit of the law, I am going to chalk it up to you being here to troll.

...

If you really want to get pedantic, just go ahead and substitute the word homicide. Most people aren't so technical or know the difference, so I go with the colloquial usage. It matters little either way unless you're actually in court and need to know what you are being charged with.

You're both goddamn dishonest trolls. Now go to hell and stop polluting this thread.


Edit: actually, screw this. I've had it with people cherry picking my arguments to suit their agendas. Have a very nice day, assholes.

[Big Phil]

I would say that we don't levy punishment based on what the family wants. We levy it based on the law.

Agreed, but why? Other societies levy punishment based on what the family wants, particularly if they're powerful and influential.

Or for that matter, why should someone without remorse or the possibility of rehabilitation be given the opportunity for remorse or rehabilitation? Why not just stick them in a deep hole and toss food down every couple of days?

Because we're better then that.

I'm not sure "we're better than that" works as either a moral or a legal argument. Morally, one can argue that killing murderers is the more moral result, based on certain possible outcomes (that murderer commits more crimes in prison, prison is even more cruel and unpleasant than the death penalty, etc.). My opposition to the death penalty isn't moral, at least not exactly. It's more practical, in that how it is enforced out is largely arbitrary and unfair. But I would argue that locking people in prison, where they are at risk of being assaulted, raped, and murdered, or able to commit those crimes, is more immoral than the death penalty.

In any case, I think Hamstray may have best summed up this entire argument, when he said

locking people up is immoral as well, even though it sometimes is legally necessary to protect the rights of others. Whether or not it is as immoral as executing them is probably subjective since there probably isn't a general consensus whether the right to life or freedom is valued more, but non the less both are immoral.