Politician wants Schwarzenegger to lose citizenship

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2005-01-22 05:46pm

I don't care what Oliver Wendell Holmes said, and I don't care if there are tailgaters outside of execution sites. That still does not give the opponents of capital punishment the right to pontificate to the families of murder victims what the acceptable frame of mind for the families of murder victims in fact is.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2005-01-22 05:48pm

Joe wrote:I don't care what Oliver Wendell Holmes said, and I don't care if there are tailgaters outside of execution sites. That still does not give the opponents of capital punishment the right to pontificate to the families of murder victims what the acceptable frame of mind for the families of murder victims in fact is.

Criminal punishments must accomplish a social good, not just satisfy the desires for revenge of the directly injured party. A murderer is punished not only because he killed somebody but because he poses a direct threat to society. If the needs of society are fit by lifetime incarceration, then that should be the punishment.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2005-01-22 05:49pm

Iceberg wrote:Criminal punishments must accomplish a social good, not just satisfy the desires for revenge of the directly injured party. A murderer is punished not only because he killed somebody but because he poses a direct threat to society. If the needs of society are fit by lifetime incarceration, then that should be the punishment.

And it's never occured to you that injured parties are members of society?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2005-01-22 05:50pm

The main problem with capital punishment is imho that too often innocents die for crimes that did no commit.
You can free innocents when new evidence is found, to revitalise dead people is a little bit harder.

That is a very real issue and one more than worthy of consideration. I support the death penalty moratoriums that some of the states have in place, and I consider the manner in which the capital punishment system is carried out extremely flawed in a number of states. I don't dispute that there are problems with the American capital punishment system, what I dispute is that the system is ethically wrong in principle and that it is morally incorrect to execute criminals whose guilt is undeniable.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2005-01-22 05:52pm

And holmes was talking about hanging in HIS day, you know the public ones.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2005-01-22 05:53pm

It is perfectly relevant. Not only is the United States not particularly unique among western nations (sorry, right-wing motherfuckers, it's the truth and if you don't like it, too bad), the constitutions of many nations that have abolished capital punishment are explicitly based on ours. Not only that, many American states have abolished the death penalty, with minimal negative effects (if any effect at all) on the murder rate in those states. So unless you can demonstrate that the death penalty is a net social good, there is no compelling need for it.

Net social good? I don't see how I can demostrate that with numbers, this is social science we're talking about here. I can say, however, that society is certainly no worse off as a result of the disposal of murderous criminals, and that the small measure of absolution that capital punishment can bring to the families of murder victims, who are part of society is certainly a social good.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2005-01-22 05:53pm

Master of Ossus wrote:
Iceberg wrote:Criminal punishments must accomplish a social good, not just satisfy the desires for revenge of the directly injured party. A murderer is punished not only because he killed somebody but because he poses a direct threat to society. If the needs of society are fit by lifetime incarceration, then that should be the punishment.
And it's never occured to you that injured parties are members of society?

What a fucking strawman. Of course the injured parties are members of society, that's why the criminal is punished. But criminal punishments need to be a deterrant, more so than being revenge, and the death penalty is clearly not a deterrant, else the homicide rates in states with the death penalty would be measurably lower than that in states without (which it is not, not without severely cooking the books). If, as is the case, the death penalty has no deterrant value, then it is mere needless barbarism.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2005-01-22 05:57pm

Iceberg wrote:What a fucking strawman. Of course the injured parties are members of society, that's why the criminal is punished. But criminal punishments need to be a deterrant,

No they don't. Deterrance is only one purpose of punishment. There are many others, including upholding community standards and bringing closure to the victim(s).

If, as is the case, the death penalty has no deterrant value, then it is mere needless barbarism.

No it isn't.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2005-01-22 05:58pm

Joe wrote: Of all the anti-death penalty arguments this one is the most disgusting and quite frankly I'm shocked that the people who want to abolish capital punishment have decided to run with it. Who the hell do you think you are to sit there and self-righteously proclaim that a grieving family member who wants the murderer of his or her loved one dead is an asshole for wanting revenge? Where do you get off telling these people that they're not entitled to the small measure of mental closure that executing the asshole who stole their loved ones can potentially bring? Even if they're not, you have no right to accuse them to being bloodthirsty just because they want what they perceive to be justice.

I don't accuse them of being bloodthirsty or that there is anything wrong with it if they are. It is not up to the state however to fulfill their bloodlust; there is no Constitutional assurance for revenge.

Whether true or not that is not really relevant to whether the U.S. should have the death penalty or not.

It shoots down your bullshit claim that the US needs the death penalty in order to have a fully functional justice system.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2005-01-22 05:59pm

What a fucking strawman. Of course the injured parties are members of society, that's why the criminal is punished. But criminal punishments need to be a deterrant, more so than being revenge, and the death penalty is clearly not a deterrant, else the homicide rates in states with the death penalty would be measurably lower than that in states without (which it is not, not without severely cooking the books). If, as is the case, the death penalty has no deterrant value, then it is mere needless barbarism.

Total bullshit. It is obviously desirable for criminal punishments to have a deterrent effect, but you're forgetting about the primary purpose of law; justice. A sense of justice is necessary for society to function, and criminal punishment certainly should help foster that sense of justice.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2005-01-22 06:02pm

Also it was on it's way out as far as the deterrent arguement goes, as when pick pockets and horse thieves were being hung, their counterparts were using the hanging as a destraction to steal wallets and horses.

and the carnivale factor is a strike against death penalties in terms of deterrance, as folks will commit acts of violence as part of the "catharsis"

justifiable reasons for this supreme sanction:

primary reasons it has been struck down in many countries

1. rather a hundred guilty go free then one innocent be denyied liberty
2. finincial situations, literally those that have money are not executed.
3. enough elements of society compare it to anchient barbarism

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2005-01-22 06:02pm

Master of Ossus wrote: As a society we are obligated to care for those who have suffered in the past. Do you not agree?

Like it or not, the purpose of the justice system is NOT to give closure to the victims of a crime. That is why the DA does not need to get the victim's okay in order to charge a suspect of a crime.

In any case, yes there is a public interest in caring for those that are victims of a crime. If they need closure, we can pay for psychotherapy, we don't need to give them some warped desire for vengeance.

Totally irrelevant, since one of the purposes of punishment is to uphold community standards. It doesn't matter if someone else's community doesn't agree with what's going on.

Did you read what I had responded to before posting this?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2005-01-22 06:06pm

I don't accuse them of being bloodthirsty or that there is anything wrong with it if they are.

That's right, you didn't accuse them of being bloodthirsty, you actually SAID they were bloodthirsty. And it's hard to interpret the words "their need for blood" in a context that is not inherently negative.

there is no Constitutional assurance for revenge.

Nor is there a express Constitutional assurance for environmental protection, Social Security, Medicare, labor laws, or even half of the services the government provides. Should the government therefore abstain from providing these services on the basis that there is no Constitutional assurance for them?

It shoots down your bullshit claim that the US needs the death penalty in order to have a fully functional justice system.

No, it doesn't. Pointing out that someone else does things differently and still manages to get by doesn't mean that the way I do things is necessarily wrong.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2005-01-22 06:08pm

The Kernel wrote:Like it or not, the purpose of the justice system is NOT to give closure to the victims of a crime.

It is not the ONLY purpose, but it is ONE purpose of a criminal justice system.

That is why the DA does not need to get the victim's okay in order to charge a suspect of a crime.

They often do, actually (hence the question "Do you want to press charges?"), but regardless one purpose of punishment is to uphold community standards and victims' families are part but not all of that community.

In any case, yes there is a public interest in caring for those that are victims of a crime. If they need closure, we can pay for psychotherapy, we don't need to give them some warped desire for vengeance.

Possibly true, but if EVERYONE found life in prison to be an unacceptably light punishment and would be denied a sense of justice without the death penalty then there would be little recourse but to resort to it. While that's an extreme example, the fact is that polls have consistently found most Americans to be in favor of the death penalty and the fact is that for someone to be executed twelve of their peers have to make that call.

Julhelm · Post by **Julhelm** » 2005-01-22 06:19pm

It costs you, as a taxpayer, significantly less to swiftly execute a major felon than keeping him in prison for the remainder of his life. Also keep in mind that being incarcerated does in no way impede a criminals ability to continue their criminal activity and hurting society. In my opinion, a system of public executions for major felons (rapists, pedophiles and in the case where premeditation has been proven, murderers) and forced labour for lesser felons would benefit society the most, because the dangerous elements would be dealt with in a swift, efficient and cheap manner, and the others would be forced to benefit society whilst serving their sentence, while in both cases satisfying the needs of the community.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2005-01-22 06:29pm

The problem with executing rapists and pedophiles, though they certainly deserve to die, in my opinion, is that by doing so you effectively remove the reason for the perpetrator to leave his victim alive, because he's dead either way.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2005-01-22 06:37pm

and actually with appeals, increased security it does cost less for a 25 to life then it does for 10+ years of appeal and delay & genetic testing before execution.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2005-01-22 06:43pm

jus·tice
n.

1. The quality of being just; fairness.
2.
a. The principle of moral rightness; equity.
b. Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness.

A man kills a couple hundred people by blowing up a certain federal building with a truck bomb. We can:

1.) Have the state support him for the rest of his life.
2.) Actually do, y'know, justice and execute him for his crime.

Allowing a murderer to live is not justice. Now, I'm not arguing that perfect justice, which is represented by an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, is the best or most desirable thing, but one certainly cannot claim that imprisonment in exchange for a life is a perfectly just sentence. Just to point that out, since there seems to be a great misunderstanding of just what "justice" is in this thread.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2005-01-22 06:45pm

Chmee wrote:"Remember Austria, ven I promised not to keel anybody? ......... I lied!"

ROFL!

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » 2005-01-22 06:45pm

Even if I agreed that somehow the state of mind of a victim's relatives has any bearing on sentencing a convicted defendant (which I don't), how could that be an argument for capital punishment? If the victim's relatives are Christians or simply don't believe in the death penalty, aren't you inflicting psychological harm on them by making them parties to judicial murder? I don't see how you can quantify any net benefit of 'closure' that makes it more likely that you're satisfying more people than you're harming, simply because there have been individuals who say they get closure from this.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2005-01-22 06:55pm

Rogue 9 wrote:A man kills a couple hundred people by blowing up a certain federal building with a truck bomb. We can:

1.) Have the state support him for the rest of his life.
2.) Actually do, y'know, justice and execute him for his crime.

This presumes that execution is just punishment (or indeed if execution is a punishment at all), which is a debatable question.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2005-01-22 06:58pm

Iceberg wrote: This presumes that execution is just punishment (or indeed if execution is a punishment at all), which is a debatable question.

How is depriving him of doing anything (good, bad, or neutral) ever again, NOT a punishment. Granted, on some extreme cases, it may be a mercy but I think that its not that likely.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2005-01-22 06:59pm

Iceberg wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote:A man kills a couple hundred people by blowing up a certain federal building with a truck bomb. We can:

1.) Have the state support him for the rest of his life.
2.) Actually do, y'know, justice and execute him for his crime.
This presumes that execution is just punishment (or indeed if execution is a punishment at all), which is a debatable question.

Actually, no it isn't debatable. Justice is, by definition, equitable. What is debatable is whether strict justice is the best or most desireable thing, especially given that justice for crimes such as rape is to rape the perpetrator and other, similar things that would unquestionably fall under the Cruel and Unusual clause.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2005-01-22 06:59pm

Iceberg wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote:A man kills a couple hundred people by blowing up a certain federal building with a truck bomb. We can:

1.) Have the state support him for the rest of his life.
2.) Actually do, y'know, justice and execute him for his crime.
This presumes that execution is just punishment (or indeed if execution is a punishment at all), which is a debatable question.

What would you do instead? Stick them in a prison with nicer facilities than the ones some people grow up in for the rest of their lives, and to which many criminals deliberately attempt to return after being let out? Institute some other form of punishment?

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » 2005-01-22 07:10pm

If justice meant a 1-for-1 in-kind trade off, then we wouldn't imprison car thieves, we'd steal their car .... equitable means 'just and impartial,' not an eye for an eye.

First year Crim Law, they teach you that criminal punishment is generally meant to achieve one of three things (or a mixture of them): Vengeance, rehabilitation, deterrence. American jurisprudence has not traditionall focused on vengeance, the concept of rehabilitation has been largely abandoned in our society, and mostly we are left with deterrence -- how do you keep them from doing it again?

Life without possibility of parole satisfies deterrence, but not vengeance, and abandons rehabilitation. So does capital punishment, but at conceiveably lower monetary cost, which is not an insignificant factor in a country that locks up more of its own citizens than any other nation on the planet.

Personally, I can't get past a simple philosophical objection to capital punishment. Is wilfully killing someone that you have completely at your mercy wrong? Yes, we say as a society ... that's always wrong, in fact it's usually first degree murder. Unless you're the state with a prisoner locked in a cell ... in which case it's okay? So killing is wrong always ... except when we do it through the power of the state. Then, an act which we consider heinous becomes acceptable.

But not for me. When we wilfully kill those we do not have to kill, through the power of the state, we are engaging in a very large conspiracy to commit murder, and I'd rather not be a part of that conspiracy.