The Death Penalty - The Metzler Case

[Metahive]

Rise from your grave!

The first problem I have with that view is, that most people do not really know, what exactly atonement is.

The second problem I have with that view is, that atonement is a religious term.

The third problem I have with that view is, that you can't force someone to atone. A forced act can not lead to a reconilation with god respective with the society.

Atonement, as in making amends for the bad things you've done in life isn't a religious term. Religion coopted many terms and declared monopoly on them (like morals and marriage), but the concept itself isn't intrinsically part of it. An atoning criminal is someone who has acknowledged the bad deeds he's done in both quality and scope and feels the desire to make up for them in a reasonable fashion. There's a reason I called this an ideal situation, I don't believe it's always possible to make it happen.

The first problem I have with that view is, that it ascribes punishment a deterrent role. The problem I have with deterrent theories is that the culprit is not punished for what he did but for what others may do.

Actually no. There was a recent study done on warcrimes committed by various parties in WW2 and they found out that warcrimes were more likely to happen in groups where superiors were either actively supporting them or...doing nothing about it if the crews committed them on their own. I think there's likewise a need for society to put certain actions and behaviours in the bad category, to at least keep the laziest of criminals from freely indulging in their trade.

@Stas Bush
I'm somewhat confused by your opinions. To clarify, do you think that the death penalty is unnecessary for nations that are affluent enough to keep their worst imprisoned for life?

Him being dead is a benefit.

Are you pointing towards the 0% recidivism rate of executed prisoners?

I think the only real incentive to improve how your society treats its worst citizens comes from the attitudes your population have towards them. I think what you're saying here is true - it does seem to be the 'easy way out' - but that describes other attitudes that I'd argue we don't change for reasons other than pure sloth. If a society has a problem with the inhumane, I'd assume that the messages "we're being treated very badly by society" should have the same weight on the public conscience as "we're being killed because society doesn't want to treat us well". Except in one case you have, as mercenary as this sounds, less suffering people.

There's a saying that you recognize societies in how well they treat their weakest. Well, besides infants imprisoned criminals who have largely lost control over their lives are among the weakest. I myself consider the loss of an autonomous life to be already harsh enough, even for rapists and murderers and I certainly disagree with "tough on crime" attitudes which IMHO opinion service nothing but to create an easily identifiable "other" to focus a societies frustration on.

The real noggin-scratcher to my argument isn't (to me) whether suffering or death is morally worse - it's determining just how badly society has to arse up its corrections system to arrive at a point where a prison sentence is the equivalent of a lingering death sentence.

Hellhole prison are symptomatic for deeper institutional problems in a society.

Since people are not immortal, what is the clear distinction between the death penalty and lesser penalties, such as imprisonment? For instance, is there a substnative difference between keeping someone under sedation until they die of natural causes, and executing them while sedated? If not, how about if kept sedated 23.99 hours per day? How about 23 hours per day? How about not sedated at all, but simply locked in an empty box with nothing to do for 23 hours per day (which is what solitary confinement is in the US)?

Sedation is controlled poisoning. Certainly not comparable to more standard imprisonment. As has been pointed out already, US prisons are among the worst in the first world and so shouldn't be taken as the standard of incarceration.

I can well understand an argument against punitive justice as a whole, but not against the death penalty specifically.

So is in your opinion a two month sentence for light theft the same as life imprisonment and the death penalty? I think that's a ludicrous position to take.

[WATCH-MAN]

The first problem I have with that view is, that most people do not really know, what exactly atonement is.

The second problem I have with that view is, that atonement is a religious term.

The third problem I have with that view is, that you can't force someone to atone. A forced act can not lead to a reconilation with god respective with the society.

Atonement, as in making amends for the bad things you've done in life isn't a religious term. Religion coopted many terms and declared monopoly on them (like morals and marriage), but the concept itself isn't intrinsically part of it. An atoning criminal is someone who has acknowledged the bad deeds he's done in both quality and scope and feels the desire to make up for them in a reasonable fashion. There's a reason I called this an ideal situation, I don't believe it's always possible to make it happen.

From Wikipedia with further sources:

• • • • The English word 'atonement' originally meant "at-one-ment", i.e. being "at one", in harmony, with someone. It is used to describe the saving work that God did through Christ to reconcile the world to himself, and also of the state of a person having been reconciled to God. Throughout the centuries, Christians have used different metaphors and given differing explanations of the atonement to express how the atonement might work. Churches and denominations may vary in which metaphor or explanation they consider most accurately fits into their theological perspective; however all Christians emphasize that Jesus is the Saviour of the world and through his death the sins of mankind have been forgiven.

From the Oxoford dictionary:

• • • • Origin:
        early 16th century (denoting unity or reconciliation, especially between God and man): from at one + -ment, influenced by medieval Latin adunamentum 'unity', and earlier onement from an obsolete verb one 'to unite'

To me it seems to be a religious term and even Christians do not really know what atonement is.

How can you force someone to reconcile with God respective with the society?

How is someone making amends for the bad things done by being punished?

How do you measure if one is atoned?

And why are people still punished although they have already atoned themself with God respective with the society?

• • • • For example:
        Person A, still very young, makes a grave error and kills person B. He regrets this and is doing all he can do to make amends. He works and transfers nearly all of his income to the bereaved. They are getting even more money than they would have gotten if B hadn't been killed. If he could, A would do more to make amends. But there is nothing more he can do. Going into a prison would only result in less money for the bereaved. After fifty years A confesses. What good would it do to punish him?
        And yet - penal law demands that he is punished, in some regions even with the death penalty.

The first problem I have with that view is, that it ascribes punishment a deterrent role. The problem I have with deterrent theories is that the culprit is not punished for what he did but for what others may do.

Actually no. There was a recent study done on warcrimes committed by various parties in WW2 and they found out that warcrimes were more likely to happen in groups where superiors were either actively supporting them or...doing nothing about it if the crews committed them on their own. I think there's likewise a need for society to put certain actions and behaviours in the bad category, to at least keep the laziest of criminals from freely indulging in their trade.

I accept that it should be clear what behaviour is accepted and what not.
But there are other ways than penal law and other ways to react to bad behaviour than punishment.

[Metahive]

Origin:
early 16th century (denoting unity or reconciliation, especially between God and man): from at one + -ment, influenced by medieval Latin adunamentum 'unity', and earlier onement from an obsolete verb one 'to unite'

"Especially" meaning it's not exclusive to religion. Thank you for supporting my usage. I could use "regret and reconciliation" but why use two words if one word alone does the job? Listen, I'm not interested in semantical quibbles, if you are so upset about me using atonement just pretend I'm saying "regret and reconciliation" instead.

[AniThyng]

I accept that it should be clear what behaviour is accepted and what not.
But there are other ways than penal law and other ways to react to bad behaviour than punishment.

This pertains to literal CHILDREN. How is it relevant to adult criminals who are fully aware that what they do is illegal?

[WATCH-MAN]

"Especially" meaning it's not exclusive to religion. Thank you for supporting my usage. I could use "regret and reconciliation" but why use two words if one word alone does the job? Listen, I'm not interested in semantical quibbles, if you are so upset about me using atonement just pretend I'm saying "regret and reconciliation" instead.

That - as I understand it - atonement is a religious term, is only one problem I have with that concept. I still believe that it is a term created by relegious people to describe a religious act. I grant that the term may also be used in other circumstances. But even than more or less the same is meant: a reconciliation - as you are saying it yourself.

From the Oxford dictionary:

• • • • noun
        • 1 the restoration of friendly relations:
          • • his reconciliation with your uncle
          
          [count noun]:
          • • the earl was seeking a reconciliation with his wife
          2 the action of making one view or belief compatible with another:
          • • any possibility of reconciliation between such clearly opposed positions
          3 the action of making financial accounts consistent; harmonization:
          • • the reconciliation process should be consistent with the business strategy

This meaning doesn't make it better.

The same questions are still unanswered.

• • • • How can you force someone to reconcile with God respective with the society?
        
        How is someone making amends for the bad things done by being punished?
        
        How do you measure if one is reconciled? [changed]
        
        And why are people still punished although they have already reconciled themself with God respective with the society? [changed]
        

        • • • • For example:
                Person A, still very young, makes a grave error and kills person B. He regrets this and is doing all he can do to make amends. He works and transfers nearly all of his income to the bereaved. They are getting even more money than they would have gotten if B hadn't been killed. If he could, A would do more to make amends. But there is nothing more he can do. Going into a prison would only result in less money for the bereaved. After fifty years A confesses. What good would it do to punish him?
                And yet - penal law demands that he is punished, in some regions even with the death penalty.

I accept that it should be clear what behaviour is accepted and what not.
But there are other ways than penal law and other ways to react to bad behaviour than punishment.

This pertains to literal CHILDREN. How is it relevant to adult criminals who are fully aware that what they do is illegal?

1. I admit that not all of these alternatives to punishement can be done with adults.
2. But some of these alternatives are applicable.
3. Children too are oftentimes fully aware that what they are doing is forbidden. And yet they are doing it.
4. These alternatives - as far as they are applicable - are only a example of what is possible. There are other ways to deal with someone who is doing forbidden things.
5. I prefer natural and logical consequences and a mix of of rehabilitative and preventive measures.