Capital punishment, Thoughts?

[DBT]

Except most heinous murderers are not "flowers". They are indeed 'weeds' and thus will never BE flowers.

So, yeah it is BS.

Society produces all sorts. In many cases it is the very condition of society that produces the 'weeds' and the problems - therefore society as a whole needs to tkae responsibility for its flawed individuals.

Killing them because they are flawed is a mark of a callous society. A society that does not take resposibility for its flawed members.

So, no, it's not BS no matter how many time you assert it

No, that is pretty much the issue. That is a great excuse for the family whose innocent loved one was murdered by a person already incarcerated so that nothing much can really be done anymore, "Sorry Ms. So-So about your husband's brutal murder. I see we have to implement better management techniques. Oh, well, live and learn..."

The issue is risk management, just as with any field of endevour that entails risk.

You still imply that violent offenders cannot possibly be managed, therefore they must be killed. Killed not for what they have done, but what they may potentially do.

Again, that is not how justice works.

 

[credoconsolans]

Society produces all sorts. In many cases it is the very condition of society that produces the 'weeds' and the problems - therefore society as a whole needs to tkae responsibility for its flawed individuals.

Killing them because they are flawed is a mark of a callous society. A society that does not take resposibility for its flawed members.

So, no, it's not BS no matter how many time you assert it

Your idea of responsibility and mine differ. So, yes, from my POV it is BS.

No, that is pretty much the issue. That is a great excuse for the family whose innocent loved one was murdered by a person already incarcerated so that nothing much can really be done anymore, "Sorry Ms. So-So about your husband's brutal murder. I see we have to implement better management techniques. Oh, well, live and learn..."

The issue is risk management, just as with any field of endevour that entails risk.

You still imply that violent offenders cannot possibly be managed, therefore they must be killed. Killed not for what they have done, but what they may potentially do.

Again, that is not how justice works.

Violent offenders can be managed but only to a degree. So why do YOU want to take a chance and give convicted heinous killers an opportunity to kill again?

That's not justice.

 

[Bomb#20]

I don't agree with the argument that punishment is the sort of thing that can even in principle be deserved. Since retributivism is gobbledygook to me, punishment can only be justified on irrational grounds, or consequentialist grounds. So when it comes to using the state to kill prisoners, I'm ambivalent, because I'm not certain of the ratio of positive to negative consequences.

Why is retributivism any more gobbledygooky than consequentialism to you?

 

[DBT]

Your idea of responsibility and mine differ. So, yes, from my POV it is BS.

It's not a question of your idea or my idea of responsibility but the ethical standard that society itself sets. And what we are told is; it is neither legal or ethical for us as individuals to execute someone for vengeance or expediency (we feel they pose a danger), yet that that same society breaks it's own standards when it takes a prisoner from his cell to a place of execution and kills him.
So, no, according to the given standard, it is not BS.

Violent offenders can be managed but only to a degree. So why do YOU want to take a chance and give convicted heinous killers an opportunity to kill again?

That's not justice.

Makes no difference, a society that hold to any sort of ethical standard does not kill people people because they may pose a risk. And your claim that violent offenders cannot be managed is BS.

 

[credoconsolans]

It's not a question of your idea or my idea of responsibility but the ethical standard that society itself sets. And what we are told is; it is neither legal or ethical for us as individuals to execute someone for vengeance or expediency (we feel they pose a danger), yet that that same society breaks it's own standards when it takes a prisoner from his cell to a place of execution and kills him.
So, no, according to the given standard, it is not BS.

As I said before, society breaks its own standards to indicate how horrific heinous crimes are.

If we didn't, then we cheapen life to nothing better than a car or household goods, therefore a heinous crime is treated as no worse than a property crime.

That makes 'society is just as bad as the criminal' argument BS.

Violent offenders can be managed but only to a degree. So why do YOU want to take a chance and give convicted heinous killers an opportunity to kill again?

That's not justice.

Makes no difference, a society that hold to any sort of ethical standard does not kill people people because they may pose a risk. And your claim that violent offenders cannot be managed is BS.

Makes every difference if you are the victim or victim's family.

No system is perfect, not even managing heinous criminals. So, no it's not. Check out the murder rate in prisons.

 

[Unbeatable]

I don't agree with the argument that punishment is the sort of thing that can even in principle be deserved. Since retributivism is gobbledygook to me, punishment can only be justified on irrational grounds, or consequentialist grounds. So when it comes to using the state to kill prisoners, I'm ambivalent, because I'm not certain of the ratio of positive to negative consequences.

Why is retributivism any more gobbledygooky than consequentialism to you?

Hard to say. It's been awhile since I've bothered trying to talk with a retributivist, so I don't thoroughly recall all the problems I ran into. But some factors might include concepts like "justice" and "deserve", which, while meaningless to me, seemed important to them.

 

[DBT]

As I said before, society breaks its own standards to indicate how horrific heinous crimes are.

If we didn't, then we cheapen life to nothing better than a car or household goods, therefore a heinous crime is treated as no worse than a property crime.

That makes 'society is just as bad as the criminal' argument BS.

Violent offenders can be managed but only to a degree. So why do YOU want to take a chance and give convicted heinous killers an opportunity to kill again?

That's not justice.

Makes no difference, a society that hold to any sort of ethical standard does not kill people people because they may pose a risk. And your claim that violent offenders cannot be managed is BS.

Makes every difference if you are the victim or victim's family.

No system is perfect, not even managing heinous criminals. So, no it's not. Check out the murder rate in prisons.

What you are saying is not supported by the evidence. The most violent inmates in high security prisons are most likely to be gang members, who are in jail because of turf wars or drug dealings, and are not in your category for execution, yet probably pose a higher threat to prison staff than your serial killers.

Or would you execute all inmates who are deemed a threat to staff safety?

Or are you simply advocating revenge killing? Look what he did...he needs to be killed, let's execute him?

 

[Bomb#20]

Why is retributivism any more gobbledygooky than consequentialism to you?

Hard to say. It's been awhile since I've bothered trying to talk with a retributivist, so I don't thoroughly recall all the problems I ran into. But some factors might include concepts like "justice" and "deserve", which, while meaningless to me, seemed important to them.

Whereas consequences are what's important to you? And if you make judgments based on what's important to you the judgments are rational, whereas if they make judgments based on what's important to them the judgments are irrational? Does rationality give you a criterion for choosing one consequence over another?

 

[PyramidHead]

If raping and murdering a toddler isn't heinous, WTF is? It seems that you are arguing for the death penalty, but only for a class of criminals so small that it likely contains zero members; which is pretty much the same as arguing against the death penalty.

You guys didn't read post #11?

I'm all for capital punishment.

Execute the heinous murderers. They have it coming and will never endanger anyone ever again. That's what executing them does.
...
Your loved one was raped, tortured and then killed brutally and slowly and oh, we're going to treat that crime no differently that if he stole your wallet at gunpoint.

I don't see a good reason to execute a prisoner in that post, just an appeal to emotion followed by a strawman. Could you point out the good reason, and explain why it is good?

 

[Bomb#20]

Great, then we all agree there is no good reason to execute a prisoner.

You guys didn't read post #11?

I'm all for capital punishment.

Execute the heinous murderers. They have it coming and will never endanger anyone ever again. That's what executing them does.
...
Your loved one was raped, tortured and then killed brutally and slowly and oh, we're going to treat that crime no differently that if he stole your wallet at gunpoint.

I don't see a good reason to execute a prisoner in that post, just an appeal to emotion followed by a strawman. Could you point out the good reason, and explain why it is good?

Huh? Why are you asking me? I was pointing out that you were wrong to say we all agree there is no good reason to execute a prisoner, when credoconsolans pretty obviously does not agree. If you want to switch from the topic of whether we all agree to the topic of whether there actually is a good reason, you'll need to ask credoconsolans -- preferably after you demonstrate that the reasons he's already posted aren't good reasons. Yes, he made an appeal to emotion; is it your position that emotional reasons are not good reasons? You made an extended string of appeals to emotion in post #53. And I'm not seeing anything in credoconsolans's post that looks like a strawman. Do you have a good reason to believe his appeal to emotion is followed by a strawman?

 

[credoconsolans]

As I said before, society breaks its own standards to indicate how horrific heinous crimes are.

If we didn't, then we cheapen life to nothing better than a car or household goods, therefore a heinous crime is treated as no worse than a property crime.

That makes 'society is just as bad as the criminal' argument BS.

Violent offenders can be managed but only to a degree. So why do YOU want to take a chance and give convicted heinous killers an opportunity to kill again?

That's not justice.

Makes no difference, a society that hold to any sort of ethical standard does not kill people people because they may pose a risk. And your claim that violent offenders cannot be managed is BS.

Makes every difference if you are the victim or victim's family.

No system is perfect, not even managing heinous criminals. So, no it's not. Check out the murder rate in prisons.

What you are saying is not supported by the evidence. The most violent inmates in high security prisons are most likely to be gang members, who are in jail because of turf wars or drug dealings, and are not in your category for execution, yet probably pose a higher threat to prison staff than your serial killers.

Uh, lots of gang members, especially who deal drugs, are also murderers. If they killed another gang member in a turf war, sure, no death penalty. If they murdered an innocent family in a mistaken search for drugs, then yes, they do qualify IMO.

Or would you execute all inmates who are deemed a threat to staff safety?

That is something to consider. Consider any other workplace. Do they keep dangerous people in the workplace?

Or are you simply advocating revenge killing? Look what he did...he needs to be killed, let's execute him?

Is self-defense what you call 'revenge' killing? To me, the death penalty is simply self-defense for society.

 

[Perspicuo]

Capital punishment, Thoughts?

I am just so grateful you didn't write 'capitol punishments'.
Tired of seeing that.

Now I can go back to my little hole.

 

[Unbeatable]

Hard to say. It's been awhile since I've bothered trying to talk with a retributivist, so I don't thoroughly recall all the problems I ran into. But some factors might include concepts like "justice" and "deserve", which, while meaningless to me, seemed important to them.

Whereas consequences are what's important to you?

And to them.

And if you make judgments based on what's important to you the judgments are rational, whereas if they make judgments based on what's important to them the judgments are irrational?

It's arguments that are rational or irrational. Un/supported premises, conclusions that do/n't follow from them, fallacies, etc. I'm not committed to a pro or anti stance wrt the death penalty, and I'm willing to agree to disagree, so my arguments are fewer and less ambitious.

Does rationality give you a criterion for choosing one consequence over another?

No. That's arbitrary.

 

[DBT]

Uh, lots of gang members, especially who deal drugs, are also murderers. If they killed another gang member in a turf war, sure, no death penalty. If they murdered an innocent family in a mistaken search for drugs, then yes, they do qualify IMO.

Just to get this straight... the gang members that did not commit a murder on the outside yet are extremely violent and therefore pose a threat to prison staff, perhaps more so than murderers are safe from execution, based on your values?

That is something to consider. Consider any other workplace. Do they keep dangerous people in the workplace?

Dangerous animals are kept and managed in zoos, dangerous inmates are kept and managed in mental institutions, dangerous elements, chemicals, toxins workplace risks are managed in countless workshops and businesses. Risk can be managed, and is managed.

So it appears that you are actually advocating the killing of undesirables, damaged individuals, sociopaths, etc, societies fuckups, for expediency and revenge rather than the risk they pose to prison staff safety, or any sense of ethics or justice.

That's your prerogative, but fortunately not a worldview shared by countries such as Australia.

Is self-defense what you call 'revenge' killing? To me, the death penalty is simply self-defense for society.

You are wrong. Inmates locked away in high security prisons virtually pose no risk to the public. When was the last time someone was murdered by someone locked in a high security prison? Who even worries about the risk?

No, your motivation is revenge killing - ''look at the monster, we need to kill him.''

Fortunately that is not how the justice system works.

 

[Bomb#20]

Whereas consequences are what's important to you?

And to them.

Well, sure, if you count consequences such as "as a consequence of this decision, that guy got what he deserved".

It's arguments that are rational or irrational. Un/supported premises, conclusions that do/n't follow from them, fallacies, etc. I'm not committed to a pro or anti stance wrt the death penalty, and I'm willing to agree to disagree, so my arguments are fewer and less ambitious.

Does rationality give you a criterion for choosing one consequence over another?

No. That's arbitrary.

And that's all fine if what you're looking for is rationality of the form "Policy P will lead to consequence X and NOT P will lead to consequence Y; I prefer X to Y; therefore I choose P." But you were talking about justifying punishment. Did you mean "justify" in the moral sense, or did you mean it in some sense where "If I don't flog my slave for trying to run away then he'll do it again; I don't want him to run away; therefore I'm going to flog him." is a justification? If the latter is the sort of thing you meant by "justify" then it doesn't really address the topic of the thread; why are you even posting about it in M&P in the first place? Conversely, if you did mean "justify" in the moral sense, then why is "justify" meaningful to you while "justice" is meaningless to you?

Perhaps you could give an example of an argument (presumably on consequentialist grounds) that you'd see as a rational moral argument for punishment, with supported premises, moral conclusions that follow from them, and no fallacies. That way we could see what you're talking about.

 

[PyramidHead]

You guys didn't read post #11?

I'm all for capital punishment.

Execute the heinous murderers. They have it coming and will never endanger anyone ever again. That's what executing them does.
...
Your loved one was raped, tortured and then killed brutally and slowly and oh, we're going to treat that crime no differently that if he stole your wallet at gunpoint.

I don't see a good reason to execute a prisoner in that post, just an appeal to emotion followed by a strawman. Could you point out the good reason, and explain why it is good?

Huh? Why are you asking me? I was pointing out that you were wrong to say we all agree there is no good reason to execute a prisoner, when credoconsolans pretty obviously does not agree. If you want to switch from the topic of whether we all agree to the topic of whether there actually is a good reason, you'll need to ask credoconsolans -- preferably after you demonstrate that the reasons he's already posted aren't good reasons. Yes, he made an appeal to emotion; is it your position that emotional reasons are not good reasons? You made an extended string of appeals to emotion in post #53. And I'm not seeing anything in credoconsolans's post that looks like a strawman. Do you have a good reason to believe his appeal to emotion is followed by a strawman?

Bolded above.

 

[Unbeatable]

And to them.

Well, sure, if you count consequences such as "as a consequence of this decision, that guy got what he deserved".

It's arguments that are rational or irrational. Un/supported premises, conclusions that do/n't follow from them, fallacies, etc. I'm not committed to a pro or anti stance wrt the death penalty, and I'm willing to agree to disagree, so my arguments are fewer and less ambitious.

Does rationality give you a criterion for choosing one consequence over another?

No. That's arbitrary.

And that's all fine if what you're looking for is rationality of the form "Policy P will lead to consequence X and NOT P will lead to consequence Y; I prefer X to Y; therefore I choose P." But you were talking about justifying punishment. Did you mean "justify" in the moral sense, or did you mean it in some sense where "If I don't flog my slave for trying to run away then he'll do it again; I don't want him to run away; therefore I'm going to flog him." is a justification?

What's the difference?

If the latter is the sort of thing you meant by "justify" then it doesn't really address the topic of the thread;

I don't see what leads you to think that.

why are you even posting about it in M&P in the first place?

See above. If you don't think my posts belong here, you're free to report them.

Conversely, if you did mean "justify" in the moral sense, then why is "justify" meaningful to you while "justice" is meaningless to you?

Justifying something, the way I see it, is just a matter of persuading someone to approve of something. It doesn't mean there's something special about that thing anymore than a person liking a certain food means there's something special about it.

It is not for me to explain why a word lacks meaning for me. Why does the word have meaning for others? How did it acquire meaning for them? My experiences must have diverged from theirs. I'm not in a good position to identify the point of divergence.

If I were to make an educated guess, "justice" seems to be a word people use to pretend that there's something special about the outcomes in the realm of human interaction of which they happen to approve.

Perhaps you could give an example of an argument (presumably on consequentialist grounds) that you'd see as a rational moral argument for punishment, with supported premises, moral conclusions that follow from them, and no fallacies. That way we could see what you're talking about.

If that's the only method you can come up with, I guess you're unlikely to ever see what I'm talking about.

 

[Bomb#20]

oh, we're going to treat that crime no differently that if he stole your wallet at gunpoint.

Do you have a good reason to believe his appeal to emotion is followed by a strawman?

Bolded above.

Do you know what a strawman is? It's a misrepresentation of an opponent's argument. Whose argument is he supposed to be misrepresenting? What he's doing is simply expressing his perception of what the policy his opponents are advocating amounts to. That's precisely what you do every time you call legal executions of people who committed capital crimes "murder".

(The difference is, when you do it what you're saying is technically false since murder is "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another", whereas when credoconsolans does it he's technically correct since people actually get sentenced to life imprisonment for stealing somebody's wallet at gunpoint under the "Three strikes you're out" law.)

 

[DBT]

What is deemed to be ''legal'' is not necessarily ethically sound, nor necessarliy compatible with other laws and their inherit values. One law or set of values for the state as carried out by its representatives and another for its members, the plebs, the great unwashed (in effect).

 

[PyramidHead]

oh, we're going to treat that crime no differently that if he stole your wallet at gunpoint.

Do you have a good reason to believe his appeal to emotion is followed by a strawman?

Bolded above.

Do you know what a strawman is? It's a misrepresentation of an opponent's argument. Whose argument is he supposed to be misrepresenting? What he's doing is simply expressing his perception of what the policy his opponents are advocating amounts to.

Bolded above. The perception that death penalty opponents want to treat wallet theft no differently than homicide is false. Thus, he isn't attacking anybody's actual argument, but only his perception of what they are arguing, sort of like an effigy or a voodoo doll made out of some flammable straw-like substance, fashioned into the shape of a hominid.

That's precisely what you do every time you call legal executions of people who committed capital crimes "murder".

(The difference is, when you do it what you're saying is technically false since murder is "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another", whereas when credoconsolans does it he's technically correct since people actually get sentenced to life imprisonment for stealing somebody's wallet at gunpoint under the "Three strikes you're out" law.)

I no longer have the capacity to take you seriously.