‘Justice is death’ for alleged shooter in Batman rampage...

[The Xeelee]

What is wrong with the way I stated it? I don't support torture or anything like that, and I don't support the death penalty under any circumstance. What a you trying to infer?

It depends. When you said that executing Holmes would be nice, you meant nice as in neat and orderly, or nice as in too soft?

It is my fault for my choice of words.

[Simon_Jester]

Then could you please restate your position? Explain exactly what you meant, choosing your words carefully so that you say what you mean to say.

[The Xeelee]

Hmm...let me try this again. The death penalty isn't nice and if I were sentenced to death, the days leading up to it would be the worse of my life. But the victims, they live with it/families with it, for the rest of their lives. What I meant was, the punishment isn't fitting to the harm done.

Although, I don't support the death penalty on other grounds, such as wrongful conviction.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

So, the punishment would be life imprisonment? Just what could be fitting with the harm done? I'm no death pnealty fan, but I can understand the people saying to just kill fuckers like Holmes and be done with it.

[Batman]

The problem with the death penalty is that you can't have one without a legal system that can sentence you to it, and if you can't trust that system to restrain the death penalty to those clearly deserving of it, you've got a problem.
Theoretically, I'm all for it, for several simple reasons:
1. There are very few repeat offenders among the dead.
2. It won't bring the murder victims back, but at least the victims' loved ones don't have to live with the knowledge that the perpetrator is living out their life in relative comfort, at state expenditure no less.
3. It saves the state said expenditure.
Realistically, I don't trust any human run or even human designed system to deliver the death sentence fairly, or at least not fairly enough.
Even ignoring the inevitable influences of racial prejudice, the rich inevitably having better lawyers, bribes, threats to cow witnesses/get them to lie etc, simple human and clerical error will inevitably lead to innocents being killed. Now some of that is inevitable, but when you figure in all the other factors I mentioned, the chance for an innocent to be killed is just too high for my tastes.
On top of that, at least for the US my #3 point doesn't seem to hold as apparently with all the appeals and counter-appeals and whatnot before someone eventually gets the death penalty makes locking them up for life actually cheaper.
Don't get me wrong, from all available evidence the guy is guilty as hell and clearly deserves the death penalty, if only to get him out of circulation for keeps.
You give a system where it's only used in cases like this, where there's no fucking way the guy is not guilty, and I'm all for it.
Have fun building one like that with humans involved at any level.

[Simon_Jester]

The problem with the death penalty is that you can't have one without a legal system that can sentence you to it, and if you can't trust that system to restrain the death penalty to those clearly deserving of it, you've got a problem.

The way you fix that is by applying the death penalty only to a narrow class of 'heinous' crimes. Examples of 'heinous' crimes we might select include:
-Multiple first-degree murders with no extenuating circumstances. I.e. the typical 'spree' killer. Or the Joker.
-Murder of a prison guard (or inmate) while already in prison (optional).
-Murders accompanying by a crime such as kidnapping or rape, IF certain types of evidence (i.e. DNA) are available.

[Batman]

The problem with the death penalty is that you can't have one without a legal system that can sentence you to it, and if you can't trust that system to restrain the death penalty to those clearly deserving of it, you've got a problem.

The way you fix that is by applying the death penalty only to a narrow class of 'heinous' crimes. Examples of 'heinous' crimes we might select include:
-Multiple first-degree murders with no extenuating circumstances. I.e. the typical 'spree' killer. Or the Joker.
-Murder of a prison guard (or inmate) while already in prison (optional).
-Murders accompanying by a crime such as kidnapping or rape, IF certain types of evidence (i.e. DNA) are available.

Look the stupid no killing policy wasn't MY idea. I have tried to do the Joker in at least twice you know. Apparently, the rest of DC humanity is just as asinine about that rule as I usually am.
And my whole point was that I don't trust any human run system to consistently abide by those standards.

[Formless]

I mean no disrespect, Bats, as we're on the same page in practice, but I do have to disagree with you (and others) on two points.

2. It won't bring the murder victims back, but at least the victims' loved ones don't have to live with the knowledge that the perpetrator is living out their life in relative comfort, at state expenditure no less.

Why is this even on your list? Why should the state indulge the darker impulses of victims, just because something bad happened to them (or rather, the people close to them, in the case of murder)? Isn't that promoting a culture of vice and vengeance, and encouraging people to remain emotionally stuck in one very dark moment of their lives until the state bureaucracy has finally finished the deal? Something which can take a while in any court case let alone a death penalty sentencing. That doesn't sound like it does the victims a favor, on top of allowing the judgement of courts to be influenced by subjective and emotionally charged concepts (i.e. how heinous a crime is depends on who you ask-- some want blood for fairly trivial things, hence organized crime, hitmen, etc.).

I can understand the desire for victimized people to confront the person who wronged them, but for very different reasons that lead to a very different conclusion about the righteousness of the death penalty. The law is by nature impersonal, and I think we can agree that when lives are on the line that this is a good thing. However, the sheer length of a DP trial means you're leaving the victims' emotions on hold for a very long time. If it were me, I suspect I would rather send a fucker to jail and get it over with quick than ask for the death penalty and spend years of emotionally draining appeals just to get someone whacked by the state.

You give a system where it's only used in cases like this, where there's no fucking way the guy is not guilty, and I'm all for it.

But guilt is not such a simple concept. How does your ideal cope with the existence of affirmative defenses? Someone committing an act doesn't always make them guilty of the crime. The relevance to this particular case being that Holmes is almost certain to pursue the insanity defense now that his plea bargain has been rejected. Is it ever right to execute the mentally ill, or is that just plain cruel?


(and just as an aside, you know the insanity plea is really unappealing if someone would rather bargain for a life sentence in prison than risk using it)

[Knife]

I can understand the desire for victimized people to confront the person who wronged them, but for very different reasons that lead to a very different conclusion about the righteousness of the death penalty. The law is by nature impersonal, and I think we can agree that when lives are on the line that this is a good thing. However, the sheer length of a DP trial means you're leaving the victims' emotions on hold for a very long time. If it were me, I suspect I would rather send a fucker to jail and get it over with quick than ask for the death penalty and spend years of emotionally draining appeals just to get someone whacked by the state.

Because the whole notion of justice implies some sort of balance or fairness, a nugget of vengeance. If you wrong me, you are punished for wronging me and are in turned wronged yourself by the society. Granted, eye for an eye isn't a good social contract, but some semblance of vengeance for the victims is to be expected as a part of justice. Just getting convicted will go towards that, getting the death sentence gets you some of that as well, even if it takes another 20 years to be carried out.

[Formless]

I do believe everyone went over this a page ago. Your definition of "justice" is bullshit, and I see no reason to humor you if you honestly cannot see the connection between justice and ethics.

You know what, forget all that. I never brought up justice, and I see no reason to. I only care about the ethics of law, and semantic distinctions about "justice" are not part of my ethics. Simple as that.

[Knife]

I do believe everyone went over this a page ago. Your definition of "justice" is bullshit, and I see no reason to humor you if you honestly cannot see the connection between justice and ethics.

You know what, forget all that. I never brought up justice, and I see no reason to. I only care about the ethics of law, and semantic distinctions about "justice" are not part of my ethics. Simple as that.

So spell out your ethics on this matter so we know what we're dealing with, instead of guessing.

[Formless]

What, the arguments I've made aren't enough data? Fine.

I use a combination of virtue ethics and utilitarianism. I don't see vengeance as necessarily being a virtue, and indeed I can see ways in which pursuing it through the courts can prolong the process of mourning without need; thus increasing the suffering of the victims on top of ending a life. The courts and justice system may not be able to change someone's moral character (only you can do that), but they can influence it through prioritization of sentencing goals and values. They are a part of our society, and thus of our culture after all. And of course, their impact on people's happiness is much more direct, considering they have the power to end lives entirely if they see fit.

[Grumman]

But guilt is not such a simple concept. How does your ideal cope with the existence of affirmative defenses? Someone committing an act doesn't always make them guilty of the crime. The relevance to this particular case being that Holmes is almost certain to pursue the insanity defense now that his plea bargain has been rejected. Is it ever right to execute the mentally ill, or is that just plain cruel?

We already know he's mentally ill - you don't decide to murder a cinema full of innocent bystanders if you're of a sound mind. If you're asking whether it's right to execute a psychotic mass murderer as opposed to a mere sociopathic mass murderer, I would say yes. If we were talking about criminal negligence or the sort of extraordinary provocation that results in a "temporary insanity" ruling I would say no, but neither of those applies to the Holmes case.

[Formless]

Actually, we don't automatically know that a mass murderer is mentally ill, at least by the standards of the medical profession. That's a media myth. Many of them are, but some have been quite stable people before committing murder-- it just turned out that when the chips were down, they were rotten to the core.

But in any case, I doubt anyone in this thread is actually qualified to comment on Holmes state of mind, being that none of us are his psychiatrist. Still, good to know where you stand philosophically on that point.

[Broomstick]

Why is this even on your list? Why should the state indulge the darker impulses of victims, just because something bad happened to them (or rather, the people close to them, in the case of murder)? Isn't that promoting a culture of vice and vengeance, and encouraging people to remain emotionally stuck in one very dark moment of their lives until the state bureaucracy has finally finished the deal?....snip....However, the sheer length of a DP trial means you're leaving the victims' emotions on hold for a very long time. If it were me, I suspect I would rather send a fucker to jail and get it over with quick than ask for the death penalty and spend years of emotionally draining appeals just to get someone whacked by the state.

There actually have been a number of survivors and relatives of the deceased who wanted Holmes' plea deal accepted just so the who trial thing could be over. They just want to know he'll never be free again, not so much whether that's due to execution or him being chucked in a cell for life. At least one, a friend of one of the deceased, has stated very explicitly that he wants this so he can move on with his life.

Not everyone is wedded to the death penalty.

The relevance to this particular case being that Holmes is almost certain to pursue the insanity defense now that his plea bargain has been rejected.

Actually, I think his lawyers will pursue the insanity defense. I'm not sure how much Holmes is tracking reality, or how much he is capable of aiding his defense team. He seems pretty whacked.

[Korto]

I've heard victim's families, where the offender was sentenced to life, say "He was given life, but our child was given death", and I've heard victim's families, where the offender was sentenced to death, say "He was given death, but we've got to live with it for the rest of our lives"
The dream of making the families happy is a chimera, and it's not about them anyway.

I actually support the death penalty in theory, but like Batman don't trust it in practise. Mostly due to the chance of mistakes (and there's "No backsies!"); but also due to the risk of mission-creep, the death penalty edging into lesser offences that I'm not comfortable with the death penalty being used for.
If the legal procedure was that the standard of guilt for the death penalty being not just beyond all reasonable doubt, but beyond all doubt that is not literally stark raving insane, then they might have something.
For example, the prosecution WILL have to prove that the offence could not have been done by some hypothetical evil identical twin no-one had ever heard of or saw before, but they DON'T have to prove it wasn't done by little green aliens in their spacecraft who used their evil mind-control ray to make a theatre full of people believe this guy pulled out a gun and shot a bunch of people before being pulled down and arrested while reloading.

Edit - Use of a hypothetical theatre shooting in this thread was unwise. My example was only meant as a hypothetical, and I apologise if it offends anyone.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

I can see it now: Holmes gets the death sentence, America feels that justice was served and we move on and continue not to have a serious societal discussion about mental health. In a few years some other distrubed person flips out and guns down a room full of strangers. Wash, rinse, repeat.

[Batman]

I mean no disrespect, Bats, as we're on the same page in practice, but I do have to disagree with you (and others) on two points.

2. It won't bring the murder victims back, but at least the victims' loved ones don't have to live with the knowledge that the perpetrator is living out their life in relative comfort, at state expenditure no less.

Why is this even on your list?

Because if you have the death penalty, that's going to be one of the benefits? At least potentially?

Why should the state indulge the darker impulses of victims, just because something bad happened to them (or rather, the people close to them, in the case of murder)?

I'm not following. The state doesn't sentence someone to death to satisfy the dark desires of anybody, it does so because a crime was committed that the law says carries the death sentence. The satisfaction is merely a bonus.
I'm sorry if I was unclear earlier. Yes, that would probably be a bad reason to introduce the death sentence. I merely meant to say that it's a potential side effect of having it.

I can understand the desire for victimized people to confront the person who wronged them, but for very different reasons that lead to a very different conclusion about the righteousness of the death penalty. The law is by nature impersonal, and I think we can agree that when lives are on the line that this is a good thing. However, the sheer length of a DP trial means you're leaving the victims' emotions on hold for a very long time. If it were me, I suspect I would rather send a fucker to jail and get it over with quick than ask for the death penalty and spend years of emotionally draining appeals just to get someone whacked by the state.

That is, however, not a problem with he death penalty as such. It's a problem with the US legal system (which I'm reasonably sure I addressed in my OP).

You give a system where it's only used in cases like this, where there's no fucking way the guy is not guilty, and I'm all for it.

But guilt is not such a simple concept. How does your ideal cope with the existence of affirmative defenses? Someone committing an act doesn't always make them guilty of the crime.

That'd be the part where he'd not be guilty, then?
And why do you think I said there's no way in hell we can make this ideal system work?

[mr friendly guy]

If one of the purpose of morality is to maximise human happiness, then the feelings of victims and relatives of victims must be considered. It arguably will not be the number one consideration, but I find it strange people advocate no consideration of it at all.

[Alyrium Denryle]

You're right, it is just up there, where anyone can see I didn't ask for the definition of a word, I asked if you realized justice and the law do not always coincide. You apparently thought quoting the dictionary would be an effective dodge if you chose a definition that clearly did not fit the context, all while ignoring one that actually did:

b (1) : the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action (2) : conformity to this principle or ideal : righteousness

God you are an idiot. Rogue responded to the claim that death is not justice. What type of justice? Legal justice? Moral? Distributive? There are many different types of justice, and even within a type of justice, there is considerably disagreement among philosophers as to what it constitutes. Worse, the different types of justice are not independent.

Rogue selected legal and a basic form of moral justice (proportionality) as his response. That he did not write a dissertation on the subject of justice as it applies to the death penalty is not a requirement in this thread. Nor is it some fault of his for responding to a very vague statement with an interpretation that is not to yours or Stark's particular liking.

Had rogue responded to the claim that the death penalty was morally wrong with the claim "No it is not, because it is legal." THEN he would be guilty of a legalistic fallacy. If you are going to accuse someone of committing a fallacy and then berate them for it, at least have the good sense to make sure you are accusing them of a fallacy in an appropriate way. Otherwise you just make yourself look like an idiot--and a pedantic idiot at that.

Now, I shall write a dissertation on moral and distributive justice as it applies to the death penalty.

Could you expand on why, exactly, you maintain that executions are always wrong, and not merely usually wrong? I am curious about your opinions.

I might as well take the bait.

I take a non-retributive stance with regard to what justice fundamentally is. Justice is not (or rather, should not be) about punishing or harming an individual who commits a bad act (or an illegal one, in this case) for its own sake. It is about correcting the bad act, and working to prevent future occurences of that bad act on the part of the individual involved and ensure that in the future, fewer of them are committed in the general population.

So, we have to ask ourselves what the death penalty does. What purpose does it serve? Does it prevent future crime? No. Does it restore the person who was murdered back to life? No. Does it offer meaningful psychological relief to the family of the original victim such that they will no longer grieve for their dead loved one? No. Does it have any moral benefits whatsoever, does the balance of good in the world increase as a result of the death penalty? No. All it does is kill a person, and inflict the same grief and pain on their innocent family as the family of the original victim. How is that fair?

Assuming the prison system itself is not a hell-pit, loss of freedom and confinement serve the purpose of protecting innocent society from the potential future crimes of a murderer. In a non-hell prison system, the underlying cause of the original murder can be addressed and the person--even if never released--can potentially be rehabilitated. When combined with more positive social policies that prevent crime... good is restored to the world. Hell, even if a particular criminal cannot be rehabilitated, there is some value in studying them. Compare the options. What is better?

Now, to the particulars of this case.

We already know he's mentally ill - you don't decide to murder a cinema full of innocent bystanders if you're of a sound mind. If you're asking whether it's right to execute a psychotic mass murderer as opposed to a mere sociopathic mass murderer, I would say yes. If we were talking about criminal negligence or the sort of extraordinary provocation that results in a "temporary insanity" ruling I would say no, but neither of those applies to the Holmes case.

Do you know what psychopathy is? It is a disconnect from reality. A person who is psychotic perceives the existence of a different world than the one you or I experience. A person who is psychotic is not making rational moral choices--not rational in relation to the actual universe anyway. They are not having hallucinations. A hallucination is something you know is not real (you know the shit in an acid trip is not real, even if it freaks you out). Psychosis robs your brain of the ability to make that distinction. Back when John Nash (the guy who basically invented modern game theory) was alive, he had a roommate who was manifestly not real... to everyone but him. He would go to dinner and have to make sure that the person he was talking to was real by asking everyone else at the table if the person to his left was actually there, and hope there was a consensus. He was self aware about it. He knew he had these things, and he still could have lived life in a fantasy world.

What the fuck is a person with say, paranoid schizophrenia that is undiagnosed to do about it? Hell, even a therapist (for something unrelated or co-morbid like bi-polar disorder) would not know about it unless told by someone else (like concerned family), or unless insanity shows itself mid session. Most cases of schizophrenia are sub-clinical. They never exhibit more than minor deviations from reality and as a result never get diagnosed, treated, or otherwise known about... unless something happens, they get stressed by say graduate school, and descend into madness.

So we are to just kill these people? He have the technology to make them better. Why the hell should they die?

[Losonti Tokash]

Next time try actually responding to things I said, and not your fevered delusions.

[Rogue 9]

You're right, it is just up there, where anyone can see I didn't ask for the definition of a word, I asked if you realized justice and the law do not always coincide. You apparently thought quoting the dictionary would be an effective dodge if you chose a definition that clearly did not fit the context, all while ignoring one that actually did:

b (1) : the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action (2) : conformity to this principle or ideal : righteousness

You didn't ask that; you asked if I realized they weren't the same thing, that is, that they never coincide. Which I don't, because they do. I didn't choose a definition that didn't fit the context, because he gave no context. You would do just as well to complain that I ignored that "justice" can mean "judge," and laid into me for not realizing that Death doesn't occupy a seat on the Supreme Court.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Next time try actually responding to things I said, and not your fevered delusions.

OK!

You understand that justice and the law are not the same thing, right ?

...

I didn't ask for any definitions, but gotta love "it's not legalism if I think something is just or unjust depending on what the law says!"

...

You're right, it is just up there, where anyone can see I didn't ask for the definition of a word, I asked if you realized justice and the law do not always coincide. You apparently thought quoting the dictionary would be an effective dodge if you chose a definition that clearly did not fit the context, all while ignoring one that actually did:

Quotes taken from separate posts for the sake of efficiency.

Dont lie to the nice people. If you are not lying (and instead, an idiot who does not understand what you write), would you like me to dissect what you write sentence by sentence? I can do that.

[Shinova]

If not the death penalty, then life sentence? It takes money to keep someone fed and relatively healthy and confined in a prison for life. So not only will the people have to lose twelve of themselves to the guy, they also have to foot his living expenses for the rest of his life?

Why can't we just execute him AND have serious discussions about mental health?

[Formless]

Because its been demonstrated repeatedly that executing someone is even more expensive than feeding, clothing, and housing them for the rest of their life. Look it up. The appeals process isn't free, and every last death row prisoner has no reason not to appeal. They literally have nothing to lose, because they are going to die.