Capital punishment, Thoughts?

[Tom Sawyer]

If the convict is willing to be executed (e.g. he says he would rather have the death penalty than spend the rest of his life in prison) should we oppose his right to die?

Well, exactly how difficult is it to walk up to the leader of the local neo-Nazi gang and kick him in the nuts? If someone wants to die in prison, I can't see it being an overly complex task to accomplish.

 

[DBT]

Anyone is able to commit suicide without permission from the authorities, not the Government, rules, laws or police can prevent a prisoner from taking that option.

 

[PyramidHead]

Anyone is able to commit suicide without permission from the authorities, not the Government, rules, laws or police can prevent a prisoner from taking that option.

They certainly can make it more difficult for him, by depriving him of any of the usual implements for a quick and relatively painless exit, and monitoring his cell to make sure he doesn't attempt it.

 

[DBT]

Anyone is able to commit suicide without permission from the authorities, not the Government, rules, laws or police can prevent a prisoner from taking that option.

They certainly can make it more difficult for him, by depriving him of any of the usual implements for a quick and relatively painless exit, and monitoring his cell to make sure he doesn't attempt it.

That's true, but someone who is serious about committing suicide need not give any indication of their intentions. Nor does it take much in the way of implements to carry out, a scrap of paper or cloth, a piece of food....

 

[credoconsolans]

If you're pinned by debris, sure. But that's not the earthquake's fault that you couldn't run away.

It's not like an earthquake only liquifies a little area.

But it's not instant quicksand. Liquifaction usually only effects heavy things. We have plenty of videos from Japan from people staring at buildings which are tilting and water is shooting up in geysers because of liquifaction. Nothing is happening to the people standing around shooting videos.

 

[bilby]

It's not like an earthquake only liquifies a little area.

But it's not instant quicksand. Liquifaction usually only effects heavy things. We have plenty of videos from Japan from people staring at buildings which are tilting and water is shooting up in geysers because of liquifaction. Nothing is happening to the people standing around shooting videos.

Ah. Well in That case, capital punishment is... Wait a minute, what does ground liquefaction in earthquakes have to do with capital punishment again?

 

[credoconsolans]

But it's not instant quicksand. Liquifaction usually only effects heavy things. We have plenty of videos from Japan from people staring at buildings which are tilting and water is shooting up in geysers because of liquifaction. Nothing is happening to the people standing around shooting videos.

Ah. Well in That case, capital punishment is... Wait a minute, what does ground liquefaction in earthquakes have to do with capital punishment again?

Someone incorrectly compared capital punishment to an earthquake and we got a bit off topic.

 

[Bomb#20]

Are you under the impression that "It's illegal to kill him; therefore he isn't a threat." is a valid argument?!?

Where did you get that from? Not from what I said.

Of course I got it from what you said. That is the exact argument you made.

me: can everyone please stop repeating the ridiculous canard that a murderer is no longer a threat to society when he's in prison?
you: Simply claiming that it is a canard doesn't make it a canard.
me: what makes it a canard is the fact that people repeat it all the time plus the fact that it isn't true.
you: The fact is, it is true. It is true because the judicial system does not allow us to kill for any reason other than self defense...and that must be only if your (or companion/s) life is under immediate threat. And the circumstances, your act of killing in self defense may be judged to be excessive. If so, it is you who faces the legal consequences of your actions.

That is the fact of it.​

What is it you think the phrase "It is true because..." means? How the heck should anyone read that, other than you offering the fact that your judicial system doesn't allow you to kill murderers as support for the claim that they aren't threats to society?!? So if you meant to express an argument other than "It's illegal to kill him; therefore he isn't a threat.", then you botched the job. What argument did you intend to make?

So in America you would be legally justified in shooting and killing someone trying to commit rape? Really?

Certainly. If a woman is being forced down by a guy trying to penetrate her, and she's somehow able to reach a gun, your government would threaten her with a long prison term unless she elects to submit to the rape instead of using it to stop him? Really? To my mind that makes your government her co-rapist, every bit as much as my government would be if it told her she had to be transvaginally ultrasounded before being allowed to remove the results of a rape from her uterus.

So if it is wrong to kill someone for inadequate reasons legally, ie, your life is not under threat, it is also wrong ethically.

Are you suggesting that something being illegal implies it's unethical? You know the Underground Railroad was illegal, right?

Irrelevant, a particular law may be or it may not be. Whether a law is fair and just, therefore ethical, is a matter of examining the law in question. I was referring to the legality and ethics of execution, either by the individual or by the state.

So you're saying in this case it's both illegal and unethical, but you're not saying the one implies the other?

What's absurd is that you make your own interpretation of my comments, and run with the flaws as if there is no chance you are mistaken. I'd suggest that you read more carefully and ask questions before arguing against strawman of your own making.

Oh for the love of god! English has rules; I'm reading carefully; your words speak for themselves. What is it you think the grammatical construction "If X, Y." means? If you are either using Humpty Dumpty semantics or writing carelessly, that's not my fault. Why on earth did you claim if it is wrong to kill someone for inadequate reasons legally, it is also wrong ethically, if you didn't mean to express the opinion that the former implies the latter?!?

Given the reasons outlined above, to kill for any reason other than self defense when your
life is under immediate threat is both illegal and unethical.

Let's suppose for the sake of discussion that your inference isn't fallacious, as far as it goes. Well, now you have a lemma. Where does it take you? We weren't arguing about whether it's unethical. We were arguing about whether a murderer in custody is a threat to society. How do you get from "Killing him is unethical." to "He is not a threat."? You're familiar with Hume having pointed out the difficulty of getting from "is" to "ought", I presume? You seem to be leaping the chasm in the opposite direction. How are you getting from an "ought" to an "is"?

It's not fallacious, it's the law: the use of excessive force.

Well, since you derived a moral conclusion without including a moral premise, it sure looks likely to be fallacious. Have you solved Hume's infamous conundrum and found a way to get from "is" to "ought"?

And the argument was broader than ''whether a murderer in custody is a threat to society'' because of the issue of justification for killing. Whether it is justified to kill someone who is in custody and has been removed from society. I think it suits you to go off into another direction altogether.

You mean, off in the direction I started this argument with you in order to go? You made three claims. I disputed claim 2, because I consider it offensive propagandistic reality-avoidance. If you don't want to defend claim 2 because you care more about claim 1 and claim 3, suit yourself; but if you don't want to defend claim 2, why have you been arguing back at me?

So your claim that a convict in custody is no longer a threat to society isn't true.

You make these proclamations as if they are Gospel.

You say that as though I were making unsupported assertions and hadn't just supplied abundant evidence. What is it you think the words "the 19-year-old shoplifter beaten to death with a table leg by Robert Stewart" mean?

How is a killer incarcerated within a high security prison a threat to people on the outside....do you think he spits over the exercise yard walls, or something? What is the threat?

You think you can just blatantly replace "society" with "people on the outside" and then argue that I'm saying he's a threat to people on the outside, when I've already made it abundantly clear I'm talking about people on the inside and made a stink about you treating prisoners as not counting as part of society? And you accuse me of a strawman? Geez!

I.e., you're trying to hairsplit between "threat" and "threat to society". Since when are people no longer part of society once they're in the prison system? Are you taking for granted that nobody you personally care about will ever shoplift and get arrested and go to jail and be assigned a psychopath for a cellmate?

For heavens sake...any reasonable person would not need the condition of incarceration, individuals that are separated from the rest of the population living their normal lives on the outside, explained. Do you really need me to explain that someone locked in a high security cell cannot stroll down Main street, stop for a coffee, or carry out a murder? You are the one splitting hairs.

So your definition of "society" is "people who can stroll down Main street and stop for a coffee"?!? It seems to me a guy who steals and is therefore locked up for 90 days to teach him not to do it again is no more a non-member of society than a guy who can't stroll down Main street and stop for a coffee for 90 days because he busted his leg.

(Incidentally, Stewart wasn't in a high security cell. He was in the same lockup as the shoplifter even though he'd been convicted of murder because when he committed the original murder he was a teenager too.)

What is it you think I'm implying, apart from implying you should quit telling people jailed murderers aren't a threat to society?

You tell tell me. You made the remark - ''Prison guards do not have superhuman abilities either. Guards get careless. A lot of guards really don't give a damn if prisoners attack one another -- sometimes they'll even set up the situations themselves, to make up for no longer being personally allowed to beat up prisoners. And most of the inmates killed by the murderers on my list would be perceived by a fair fraction of the population as having it coming, so good riddance; this limits the effort that will be put into protecting them.''

So what does ''good riddance'' (even if that is not your personal view) imply?

It implies that murderers in prison are a threat to society, and they're going to continue to be a threat to society, because most of society's members don't care enough about the welfare of the fraction of society they've sent to prison to make the effort and spend the money it would take to make prisons safe. If teenage shoplifters were the face of murdered prisoners it might be different, but they're the minority. The average murdered prisoner is either a murderer himself, or a rapist, or a prison gang thug. So they don't get a lot of sympathy, and prisons will remain dangerous, even for teenage shoplifters.

And this still misses the point that prison guards are trained for the job of handling risky prisoners, they made their choice of career in full knowledge of the problems of their work place.

That's doubtful. People tend to become prison guards because they're low-skilled and they need jobs. In the U.S. at least, they tend to either quit in horror within a few years or else get their empathy ground out of them; and if they fail to protect prisoners from one another they have powerful unions to protect their jobs. Making prisons safe is a hard problem.

We're killing people by proxy; the least we can do is tell the truth to ourselves about it.

Only if you want to play a pedantic game of splitting hairs. Prisons are institutions of society and their purpose is to isolate or remove individuals that pose a public risk from the public - 'public' meaning society at large...if that needs spelling out. How many violent inmates escape high security prisons?

So when you said "A convict in custody is no longer a threat to society.", you meant "A convict in custody is no longer a threat to those members of the public who are at large." and you don't care about the ones who currently aren't at large? Would you feel that way if it was your kid brother who did something stupid and got himself jailed?

 

[DBT]

Where did you get that from? Not from what I said.

Of course I got it from what you said. That is the exact argument you made.

No, you are making your own fallacious interpretation. An interpretation that allows you keep arguing against a strawman of your own making.

The argument is, as I've already explained several times, prisons are constructed as a means of separating prisoners, violent offenders in this instance, from normal public life, normal society. And yes, prisons are a part of Society. They are a part whose purpose is to neutralize any threat that's posed by violent offenders.

me: can everyone please stop repeating the ridiculous canard that a murderer is no longer a threat to society when he's in prison?

Can you stop repeating the ridiculous notion that violent offenders, being incarcerated in a high security prisons, are a threat to anyone on the outside, housewives doing their shopping, children at play, etc.

They are a potential risk to the guards, but they are trained to deal with violent inmates and have procedures in place. But the prison itself is isolated from external society.

me: what makes it a canard is the fact that people repeat it all the time plus the fact that it isn't true.

Using an invalid proposition: that prisons are a part of society, therefore prisoners are a threat to society. Gee wiz, that's clever thinking.

Let's suppose for the sake of discussion that your inference isn't fallacious, as far as it goes. Well, now you have a lemma. Where does it take you? We weren't arguing about whether it's unethical. We were arguing about whether a murderer in custody is a threat to society. How do you get from "Killing him is unethical." to "He is not a threat."? You're familiar with Hume having pointed out the difficulty of getting from "is" to "ought", I presume? You seem to be leaping the chasm in the opposite direction. How are you getting from an "ought" to an "is"?

Are you serious? Are you making up this shit as you go along? Read carefully; a violent offender is placed into a high security environment in order to isolate him from external/public society and thereby eliminate the threat he poses to the public.

While incarcerated he is no longer a threat to the public, and if safety procedures are followed, he is not a threat to the guards.

Now if an inmate is executed, an individual, who is no longer a threat to the public, is taken from his cell to a place where his execution, having been planned in advance, is carried out. It is a premeditated killing performed by the State. For what purpose? He is no longer a threat to the public and any threat he poses to the guards can be managed.

and you don't care about the ones who currently aren't at large? Would you feel that way if it was your kid brother who did something stupid and got himself jailed?

Bizarre. Nothing to do with what I said.

I won't bother with the rest of your post, it's based on your twisted interpretation.​

 

[DBT]

Just to be clear: If justifiable homicide is defined as ''a killing without evil or criminal intent, for which there can be no blame, such as self-defense to protect oneself or to protect another, or the shooting by a law enforcement officer in fulfilling his/her duties'' there should not be a double standard of ethics; our society tells us that it's wrong to kill another human being unless in self defense, and only when one's life is under immediate threat, as there are serious penalties for the use of excessive force.

Yet that very same society sets about planning the execution of an individual who is in custody, who is no longer a threat to public safety, takes him from his cell to a place of execution and kills him in cold blood?

By the laws of that society execution may indeed be a legal procedure, but by the ethical standards it purports to uphold in regard to the killing of a fellow human being, it is not a moral act.

Civilized behavior, or at least some claim to a higher morality, would demand that a society or state should behave in manner that is better than its worst citizens. And that means not killing its citizens for the sake of punishment, revenge, convenience or expediency.

 

[credoconsolans]

Yet that very same society sets about planning the execution of an individual who is in custody, who is no longer a threat to public safety, takes him from his cell to a place of execution and kills him in cold blood?

How about everyone's safety? Prison guards, social servants and other prisoners do count.

Civilized behavior, or at least some claim to a higher morality, would demand that a society or state should behave in manner that is better than its worst citizens. And that means not killing its citizens for the sake of punishment, revenge, convenience or expediency.

Yet a civilized society should react in such a manner that it lets its citizens know that heinous crimes must be treated as the aberration that they are, so much so, rather than treating the criminals as if they committed a property crime, the perps must be given a sentence that makes certain that they will never endanger ANYone ever again.

 

[DBT]

How about everyone's safety? Prison guards, social servants and other prisoners do count.

Of course they count. As I said, prisons are set up to deal with the threat posed by violent individuals. The general public is not, hence violent individuals are put in a place, prison, where their violent ways can be managed by people who are trained for the task, thereby removing the risk they pose to the public, from the public. This is basic stuff, I don't know why it even needs explaining.

Yet a civilized society should react in such a manner that it lets its citizens know that heinous crimes must be treated as the aberration that they are, so much so, rather than treating the criminals as if they committed a property crime, the perps must be given a sentence that makes certain that they will never endanger ANYone ever again.

Sure, but for the ethical reasons I gave, that sentence should be life imprisonment.

 

[PyramidHead]

I don't get this point about prison guards. As if the only way to mitigate the threat of violence to trained professionals is to kill the prisoner before they have the chance to bust out of their restraints. By the same logic, quarantined Ebola patients should have just been euthanized on the spot; it's the only way to be sure they'll never infect anybody again, and if you disagree the deaths of any nurses are on your conscience. Usually that's a last resort, after the other forms of containment have been tried. Are you people seriously saying there is literally no way to improve the security of prisons that hold violent inmates, that every single method of minimizing risk has been exhausted already, other than murdering the inmates? Again, the reasoning always seems to be, why not? Let's just kill this guy and we won't have to deal with him anymore. Most civilized societies have matured beyond the mafioso stage of problem-solving, and so should we.

 

[TV and credit cards]

What is this thing you call morality?

I had just sat down in a bar in Thailand. On the wall next to me were Polaroid pictures of people hacked to death with a notice above stating: "This is what happens to you if you don't pay your bill".


I do not know to what extent I should value human life? Perhaps it's just that I have never studied this so all I can do is look at it practically.

This is where I'm at on capital punishment:
I think regardless of the crime(s), and the heinousness of it, attempts at rehabilitation should always be the first course of action and maybe the second, etc. With that said, if it is shown the individual cannot be rehabilitated and trusted within society, society has no duty to maintain his/her existence. At this point perhaps the individual should be killed. This may serve to remove the issue with false accusations as long as the individual can show they are capable of functioning in society.
This is quite a shift for me and I'm not 100% comfortable with it yet. The rehabilitation would have to be widely accepted amongst professionals in the field. What I struggle with is, should an individual who repeatedly commits petty theft offences be put to death? Should an individual who commits first degree murder be released in short order because a rehabilitation board says so? Well, according to me, yes on both counts. What I'm wondering is: What value does a human life have if it only serves to offend society? Surely this question must have been asked before.
I keep telling myself this is wrong but I cannot figure out why.

 

[Wiploc]

How about everyone's safety? Prison guards, social servants and other prisoners do count.

If we're talking about everyone's safety, then the safety of the people that you want to kill counts too.

I wonder about the ratio: how many people you would kill over how many people you might save.

I wonder too about the other ratio: how many innocent people you would kill over how many people you might save.

 

[PyramidHead]

How about everyone's safety? Prison guards, social servants and other prisoners do count.

If we're talking about everyone's safety, then the safety of the people that you want to kill counts too.

I wonder about the ratio: how many people you would kill over how many people you might save.

I wonder too about the other ratio: how many innocent people you would kill over how many people you might save.

Now, now. credoconsolans isn't a danger to anybody except inmates who may attempt to harm a prison guard at some indeterminate point in the future.

 

[credoconsolans]

Of course they count. As I said, prisons are set up to deal with the threat posed by violent individuals. The general public is not, hence violent individuals are put in a place, prison, where their violent ways can be managed by people who are trained for the task, thereby removing the risk they pose to the public, from the public. This is basic stuff, I don't know why it even needs explaining.

Yet a civilized society should react in such a manner that it lets its citizens know that heinous crimes must be treated as the aberration that they are, so much so, rather than treating the criminals as if they committed a property crime, the perps must be given a sentence that makes certain that they will never endanger ANYone ever again.

Sure, but for the ethical reasons I gave, that sentence should be life imprisonment.

Uh, any time a prisoner is incarcerated he is still a danger to other prisoners and guards.

That danger doesn't go away with life imprisonment. To me, those workers count as general public.

By the same logic, quarantined Ebola patients should have just been euthanized on the spot;

Since when is catching a disease a heinous crime?

How about everyone's safety? Prison guards, social servants and other prisoners do count.

If we're talking about everyone's safety, then the safety of the people that you want to kill counts too.

Did you lose sight of who commmitted a heinous crime?

I wonder too about the other ratio: how many innocent people you would kill over how many people you might save.

That's what long appeals process is for.

 

[bilby]

Of course they count. As I said, prisons are set up to deal with the threat posed by violent individuals. The general public is not, hence violent individuals are put in a place, prison, where their violent ways can be managed by people who are trained for the task, thereby removing the risk they pose to the public, from the public. This is basic stuff, I don't know why it even needs explaining.



Sure, but for the ethical reasons I gave, that sentence should be life imprisonment.

Uh, any time a prisoner is incarcerated he is still a danger to other prisoners and guards.

That danger doesn't go away with life imprisonment. To me, those workers count as general public.

By the same logic, quarantined Ebola patients should have just been euthanized on the spot;

Since when is catching a disease a heinous crime?

How about everyone's safety? Prison guards, social servants and other prisoners do count.

If we're talking about everyone's safety, then the safety of the people that you want to kill counts too.

Did you lose sight of who commmitted a heinous crime?

I wonder too about the other ratio: how many innocent people you would kill over how many people you might save.

That's what long appeals process is for.

I tell you what; let's make the appeals process take at least 95 years for all capital cases. If the convict hasn't been proven not guilty after 95 years of appeals, then you can execute him.

 

[DBT]

Of course they count. As I said, prisons are set up to deal with the threat posed by violent individuals. The general public is not, hence violent individuals are put in a place, prison, where their violent ways can be managed by people who are trained for the task, thereby removing the risk they pose to the public, from the public. This is basic stuff, I don't know why it even needs explaining.



Sure, but for the ethical reasons I gave, that sentence should be life imprisonment.

Uh, any time a prisoner is incarcerated he is still a danger to other prisoners and guards.

That danger doesn't go away with life imprisonment. To me, those workers count as general public.

As I've said several times now, prison guards know what they are getting into when they take the job, they are trained to deal with the risk, there are procedures in place. Nor are they in public while at work. Given that safety procedures are followed, there is little risk to the guards. Prisoners are not super human, they can be managed. They are not the Hannibal Lectors of Hollywood.

What would you suggest? Kill all vioent inmates because they pose a risk to the Guards? That's what you appear to be implying.

 

[DBT]

I don't get this point about prison guards. As if the only way to mitigate the threat of violence to trained professionals is to kill the prisoner before they have the chance to bust out of their restraints.

It's a Red Herring.