BEST Argument for Death Penalty I've Seen!

[arnisador]

Perhaps a system where the TRUTH is the ultimate goal, as opposed to the system we have where it's about who's lawyer is the best in front of a jury.

So, what would that mean? A tribunal system of judges investigating and deciding?

 

[rmcrobertson]

Uh...hate to mention reality here, but our current system is designed precisely to produce truth through dialectic: the prosecution provides the thesis, the defense provides the antithesis, the judge watches the rules, the jury listens, deliberates, and provides the synthesis.

One problem is that we refuse to ante up, and provide an educated populace for the jury. Another is that our justice system is unequal: people with money get off more easily, people of color get screwed more easily by a system biased a little at every level.

And, we taxpayers refuse to spend the money on cops, decent records, adequate staff and equipment, etc., that the whole thing badly needs. We also refuse to make needed reasonable changes, such as the British banning of the press from direct reporting on trials-in-progress.

Instead, we fiddle around with loopy, "reforms," that have nothing to do with the real problems, or we fool around blaming, say, "the ACLU," for the real problems.

Show of Internet hands: who's willing to ante up for the criminal justice system we actually need?

 

[47MartialMan]

I wonder what the effect will be if there was still "Public Executions"?

 

[MA-Caver]

The idea of public executions have been played around for a while. Pay-per-view people argue that it would be probably THE biggest and most watched event in history and then after a while it would taper off... but not much. Dispite the hue and cry people (in general) still have a fascination with watching someone die. A lot probably won't admit it openly but it's something primal in us, in our psyche that gets us to want to watch. Some will resist but many won't. Remember how many hits the beheading videos from Iraq a while back got? Same idea.
But the other side had argued about who would get the money? The families of the victims? The company straight out. Would it pay for the cost of the execution?
Then there's the morality side of the coin. How do/can you screen it so that those under 18 aren't going to watch it? You can't... not 100%. So there we have violations or possible violations of laws preventing that.
In a sense executions are public with selected witnesses that have no connection to the crime or case (not excluding the families and so forth). There are vigils outside prisons where an execution is being held. While they are not actually witnessing it per se' it's still an indication of the turn out a pay-per-view would get.
With the advent of the internet and the ability to transfer video copies to the computer such events would probably suffer viewership once someone copies the live broadcast and puts it out on the net. They'll make money off of it first before someone else copies what they put out and then puts it out for free on places like Kaaza and other Napster-clones.
I'd be surprised that in the next five years that this starts happening.

 

[47MartialMan]

Yeah, I had this discussion long ago, and it was tohught that such will not occur, per a public broadcast.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Uh...hate to mention reality here, but our current system is designed precisely to produce truth through dialectic: the prosecution provides the thesis, the defense provides the antithesis, the judge watches the rules, the jury listens, deliberates, and provides the synthesis.

So how's that working out for us?

One problem is that we refuse to ante up, and provide an educated populace for the jury. Another is that our justice system is unequal: people with money get off more easily, people of color get screwed more easily by a system biased a little at every level.

We can agree there, about the money that is. Money makes our system.

And, we taxpayers refuse to spend the money on cops, decent records, adequate staff and equipment, etc., that the whole thing badly needs. We also refuse to make needed reasonable changes, such as the British banning of the press from direct reporting on trials-in-progress.

Because we're cheap and lazy as a people.

Instead, we fiddle around with loopy, "reforms," that have nothing to do with the real problems, or we fool around blaming, say, "the ACLU," for the real problems.

The ACLU certain contributes, mostly because trial lawyers don't get paid as much, if they lose. Especially if the guy is guilty. But i'll save my critique of attorneys for another day.

Show of Internet hands: who's willing to ante up for the criminal justice system we actually need?

You can put me down.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Uh-oh, agreement. The Apocalypse is here.

 

[Tgace]

My county is in such a mess that they are cutting the Sheriff Dept. and the DA's office down to nothing. The chopper is grounded and they are telling the local courts to start thinking about providing their own prosecutors for misdemeanor cases.....

 

[47MartialMan]

My county is in such a mess that they are cutting the Sheriff Dept. and the DA's office down to nothing. The chopper is grounded and they are telling the local courts to start thinking about providing their own prosecutors for misdemeanor cases.....

Youre kidding?

 

[Tgace]

Nope...county government is wrecked here. Glad I turned down a job with the Sheriffs dept. Any search on Erie county fiscal crisis will show the extent....

 

[sgtmac_46]

Join the crowd, man. People are very cheap on the local level. They all want federal money to pay for everything. They don't realize that if they spent a little more on taxes on the local level, they would get more out of their tax dollar. Oh well.

 

[47MartialMan]

Nope...county government is wrecked here. Glad I turned down a job with the Sheriffs dept. Any search on Erie county fiscal crisis will show the extent....

Poor managemet of funs or not enough supporting community revenue?

 

[heretic888]

At this point, I think I should mention that side issues like crime deterrency or material cost or who else does it or DNA testing are all pretty much secondary or derivative to the central issue at hand: meaning, are state-sanctioned executions a moral institution??

I will argue that they are not. I will argue that murdering another human being (hey, let's call it what it is) when it can rather easily be avoided is not moral. I will argue that punishing those who kill by, well, killing is the most contrived moral logic one could possibly resort to.

I will further argue that many, if not all, of the defenses of state executions that have been advanced on this thread have been variations of the logical fallacies known as Appeal to Emotion and Two Wrongs Make A Right.

I will argue even further that much of the logic underlying these defenses are forms of Other psychology or Jungian Shadow psychology. Namely, these are Ego defense mechanisms whereby one projects the "Shadow" or "Other" onto those believed to be "evil", in order to rationalize and justify their utter destruction. This is basically a dehumanizing process whereby one is conditioned to distance oneself from the Other --- often with telltale terms like "inhuman", "monster", "demon", "devil", and so forth.

The goal, of course, is not only to dehumanize the Other so as to "moralize" its destruction but to ensure the Ego is everything the Other is not (i.e., "evil"). Milgram used it in his classic experiments. As did Zimbardo during the "Stanford prison" experiment. So did the Vietcong, for that matter.

I will argue to even further degree that executions have been used by human beings for a long, long, long time --- and the origins of such institutions have little to do with "justice", "morality", or "the right thing". It has to do with vengeance, and destroying the Other --- so as to preserve the Order.

Lastly, I shall argue that bringing up such things as the material costs or the ability of capital punishment to "deter" future crimes is a manifestation of the industrial ontology (re: materialism) that Western culture has been immersed in for at least 200 years. An issue cannot have psychological or moral value in and of itself, but must ultimately be relegated to "socioeconomic" issues.

All of which, of course, I find to be very, very, very interesting.

 

[sgtmac_46]

At this point, I think I should mention that side issues like crime deterrency or material cost or who else does it or DNA testing are all pretty much secondary or derivative to the central issue at hand: meaning, are state-sanctioned executions a moral institution??

I will argue that they are not. I will argue that murdering another human being (hey, let's call it what it is) when it can rather easily be avoided is not moral. I will argue that punishing those who kill by, well, killing is the most contrived moral logic one could possibly resort to.

I will further argue that many, if not all, of the defenses of state executions that have been advanced on this thread have been variations of the logical fallacies known as Appeal to Emotion and Two Wrongs Make A Right.

I will argue even further that much of the logic underlying these defenses are forms of Other psychology or Jungian Shadow psychology. Namely, these are Ego defense mechanisms whereby one projects the "Shadow" or "Other" onto those believed to be "evil", in order to rationalize and justify their utter destruction. This is basically a dehumanizing process whereby one is conditioned to distance oneself from the Other --- often with telltale terms like "inhuman", "monster", "demon", "devil", and so forth.

The goal, of course, is not only to dehumanize the Other so as to "moralize" its destruction but to ensure the Ego is everything the Other is not (i.e., "evil"). Milgram used it in his classic experiments. As did Zimbardo during the "Stanford prison" experiment. So did the Vietcong, for that matter.

I will argue to even further degree that executions have been used by human beings for a long, long, long time --- and the origins of such institutions have little to do with "justice", "morality", or "the right thing". It has to do with vengeance, and destroying the Other --- so as to preserve the Order.

Lastly, I shall argue that bringing up such things as the material costs or the ability of capital punishment to "deter" future crimes is a manifestation of the industrial ontology (re: materialism) that Western culture has been immersed in for at least 200 years. An issue cannot have psychological or moral value in and of itself, but must ultimately be relegated to "socioeconomic" issues.

All of which, of course, I find to be very, very, very interesting.

I applaud your intellectual honesty in dealing with the central issue, as opposed to the fallacious attempt to create complex side issues for the purpose of creating strawmen.

Now, i'll deal with your argument. Morality is subjective, not objective. The death penalty, appropriately applied and all other issues aside, is the most pragmatic way to eliminate a violent element from society. As it is a violent minority that commits the majority of violent crime, meaning they commit multiple offenses in their lifetime, the rational thing to do is eliminate them permanently from society, and the most sure way of doing that is to execute them.