The Death Penalty: Yes or No?
- Thread starter MJS
- Start date
Doc_Jude
3rd Black Belt
NOW, THIS IS A GOOD IDEA. If it was televised, ever better. I'd watch this over American Idol any day of the week.
Data?
You want to argue with data?
How Dare you approach me with Data on a subject I feel Emotional About,
Of course I accept Data. I like to review it myself and see sample sizes and run my own numbers versus see the "results" of others.
My argument is that I support Capital Punishment. If Society decides that a crime fits this bill then the puynishment is Death. If Society decides it is life of imprisonment, then see the first part of how to keep it cheap. But even if one does not prescribe to that, it is what Society has decided.
I know that in today's society with the exception of Engineers, not many people where solid colored soft collared shirts out to the bar. Soceity is fickle when it comes to fashion. It is more acceptable to wear a long sleeve shirt with no collar. It is more acceptable to wear a formal shirt untucked and possible unbuttoned with a T-shirt under it. It is even better to wear just a T-shirt with some crazy saying or pattern off center on it. Of course I have not prescribed to this latest fashion trend. Maybe that is why I am not having luck recently.
Of course one says WTF to this? How does this relate. I bring it up now for I recognize that Soceity is Fickle and transient. So, if Society decides that it is bad to kill people at random for no cause, then they will assign a punishment to the said crime. If there is problem with the punishment being too tough there will be discusisons and lobby's and appeals to address these issues. The same goes the other ways as well. It may not be the best system, but it allows for change over time and for people to express their point of view. If society or their elected officials decides that it is bad to allow certain things on planes, then there will be new laws and acts and enforcement agencies put in place. The Courts can hear cases brought to them by groups or individuals that challenge those laws.
The way I present it tries to respect that in Canada, if they decide to have no Capital Punishment or to not allow people to own a firearm and they agree to that then good for them. They have decided and enacted a form of control for themselves. If the US decides to allow people to wlak around naked as a statement of their religious beliefs then that is cool as well, as long as they are following the law.
** Quote from: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html **
I agree that people should have the right of the people peaceably to assembly. But in almost all cities and states there is a requirement to get a prarade or event license. This does not prohibit the right to peaceable assembly it just requires something for the locals to understand that there is an event coming to plan for it. And so society has decided that it is ok to peaceable assembly but that one must inform the local authorities so there are no surprises. So soeciety has decided this should be the way it is handled. Of course society assigns a value to this and it usually a fine.
Doc_Jude
3rd Black Belt
Richard Parsons:
Who should then suffer for those wrongfully executed? Or should we simply forget about them? Acceptable Losses? Collateral Damage in our rush to punish the guilty or fulfill the whims of the masses? Moral Authority this fallible is neither Moral nor Worthy of Authority. & just because the majority want something doesn't mean it's right. Many people would cancel the Constitutional Rights of others, but it's not going to happen, not w/o a lot of work and subjection to criticism.
Who should then suffer for those wrongfully executed? Or should we simply forget about them? Acceptable Losses? Collateral Damage in our rush to punish the guilty or fulfill the whims of the masses? Moral Authority this fallible is neither Moral nor Worthy of Authority. & just because the majority want something doesn't mean it's right. Many people would cancel the Constitutional Rights of others, but it's not going to happen, not w/o a lot of work and subjection to criticism.
I can't say that "Human Rights Magazine" is an unbiased source. Especially when they don't cite their "startling statistics" nor any info on the innocent men.
I would like to hear the rest of this story from an unbiased source. Especially since I can't say that I follow their argument. Some innocent men were freed - that's a good thing, right? If they were in fact innocent? How many of those were due to technicalities or to legal loopholes. I would ask....how many of the GUILTY criminals get OUT of their punishments due to a legal system with too many loop holes and checks and balances.
There is truly no way to create statistics for something like this, innocence and guilt are not black and white issues. They are decided by the jury and judge - very few people will outright admit to their guilt. In prisons....everyone's innocent.
Personally, I have always seen the "wrongfully executed" argument as an emotional appeal of those opposed to the death penalty. How many are wrongfully executed? No way to know and on top of that, to get yourself in the position to BE executed, you are obviously not a model citizen to begin with. I've never been to court or arrested....because I don't do things wrong. Generally those who end up in courts or arrested are doing something wrong.
There are of course the wrongfully accused, there will always be - it is human nature to place blame. Which is why we have a very robust legal system with millions of loopholes, technicalities and appeals....and a jury of your peers. If you make it through that entire process and are STILL on death row, I simply cannot believe that you did nothing wrong.
Well as stated by others and I thought by myself, if the law allows for appeals then so be it. Use those appeals and once they are used up then execute the person.
Do I recognize that in the past there have been errors some by mistake and some by design? Yes I do. Do I think it is perfect? No I do not.
But to think that life is a Utopia and that wishing for everyone to behave is not going to make the world better. I have run across thsoe young er than 18 who would assault an adult and then cry that they were under 18 and could not be hit. (* Usually around 16 or 17 *) This did not stop me from making a point with them. They needed to understand that their actions have effects or consequences.
If there were no laws then some would go out and take from others. (* It happens today, and these people are socially unacceptable *) But there would be more. I have talked to them. I know some on medication and others who are not, who would go out and start killing or robbing if they thought they could get away with it. They fear loosing everything and going to jail. Some form of recognition of it being unacceptable is what stops them. If a large person is able to walk up and take your food and no one says anything and you have nothing to defend yourself, and there is no one to say it is unacceptable then they get away with it, and it enforces negative behaviours (* by today's standards *) and they do it again.
But your concern is that these people could be locked up to avoid a mistake. The issue I have is that there are people who need to be removed from soceity. No matter what you do they are not acceptable either my chemical inbalance or choice or what have you. Yet, some innocent might get killed and therefore we need not do it.
Let us look at the no innocent should ever be killed. This is our goal.
So is it ok for others to kill? Is it ok for terrorist or freedom fighters or religious fanatics or fundamentalists to kill others. If you let them go they will do it again and with pleasure and or believe they are doing what is right. Now this could be defined acceptable by their society, but unacceptable by someone elses. So they go to war. But an innocent might die trying to make sure that no more dictators try to take over the world. So, this means to aovid possible having one fo our society killed we just give into their society. Their request becomes the requirement and commands. This is done to aovid some innocent from being killed. On both sides. So in the end that culture or society that is not willing to make a stand to make the statement that some things are not just right will not survive. If they choose to go their way and allows others to dictate their future ( by choice not by force ) will have their culture disappear.
I respect that someone may have a religious point and wish that no one would die. I understand that to some ay form of killing including self defense is to be avoided. I respect their point of view. And they have a right in this society and culture to express their point of view. But, so do I. I could say my religion allows for killing. This make my opinion just as valid as anyone else's who says their religion prohibits it. And in a culture that allows for both to express, a point of view and an idea niether is superior to the other. The are both as valid and invalid.
My point about our culture though is that there are Morals, Ethics and Laws.
Morals are what we learn that is right or wrong from either church or family or even soceity itself.
Ethics are like Morals but are from a professional level. Is ti ok to help a patient, or to defend a guilty person, etcetera. They have less of a personal feel to them. And can also be effected by or effect society.
Law is what the people or their elected representative believes that is necessary to have order. While it may be unethical to own a business and recommend people to invest in it at one time that was completely legal. Now it is a little more difficult and some positions it may even be illegal to do such now. This is how Ethics effects Law. If people are not following it then they enact a law. Not because it stops them but to assign a punishment, in most cases.
While I do not support the whole killing of people, I understand that science will get better and mistake will happen. (* Been questioned/arrested myself based upon statements by others that later did not led to charges *). I understand that the subject is very emotional to some as it represents a major part of their religion/faith. And many think that to disagree with them somehow invalidates their religion and or challenges their faith. But to me if they had what I call true faith and walked with the knowledge that they were doing the right thing and they said their peace, and presented their case then they should accept that others may disagree. They should understand that not everyone thinks just like them. I have to accept it and live with it, I hope they do. Unfortunately, it is acceptable for people to come to my home and try to tell me I am going to hell for not believing like them. It is ok for people to claim that all lives are sacred and how dare you threaten anyone's life with the support of a punishment. Be it caning to capital. It is acceptable for the religious groups to insist that you are not a true patriot if you do not follow step with them. I hope that this can be modified. I do not wish to take away religions. I just want them not to be a part of my forced life by others. If we choose to enter into discourse here, and talk philosphy that is good.
So do I wish that no one would ever have to die form a disease? Yes.
Do I wish that no one would ever have anything stolen ever again? Yes.
Do I wish that no one would ever be raped? Yes
Do I wish that no one would ever assaulted or attacked? Yes.
Can I stop this? I see no way possible. There are too many groups on thie small planet all looking to make sure that their personal beliefs and society culture is the one that survives. Some do it through capitalism, other sthrough religion, and others through terror. But those that do not make a statement will go the way that other cultures have. I see it all tied together. If I can support the use of leathel force to defend myself, and to protect our society then how can I not support the use in punishment as well. I also thought Dr. Kevorkian was trying to help people. I think people should have the right to end their lives. In his case in broke the law, and was prosecuted and sentenced by the law. If a person wished to end their life, and they are not insane and only have a standard of living issue then I support it. Just because for some unknown reason I do not support. I would support them loosing all benefits form life insurance and such.
I believe a person should be held accountable for their actions. I think they should be responsible for the effects they have caused upon society. Michael Vick was convicted/plead guilty to charges and punished for 23 months out of 5 years possible. But, there were many on Monday Night football who supported his actions and were upset that he could not play football. Now I support their right to say this. But I find it a sad state of affairs that they because he plays a national sport he should get special treatment. But that is my opinion.
Could I get a link to a case in the last 10 years (* First conviction not appeals or death *) where modern techniques have been used that a person has been wrongfully convicted and executed?
I would argue that the basis of human nature is not to satisfy our own needs and desires, but to survive on our own individual terms as much as possible. Often, this means cooperating with others. There is a distinct difference.
Are you saying the acts that society has deemed criminal are the fault of society. That were it not for society itself, then these acts would not occur?
No you would not. His position does not mean that it has to be taken to that extreme. It just means that insanity would not necessarily need to be allowed as a legal justification for a crime.
I disagree. It is not saying that two wrongs make a right. It is merely showing that the consequenses of ones actions may be death by the state. What you are saying by this is that death at the hands of other human beings is always wrong, whether it be murder, or say, self-defense.
Then it is interesting that you are posting this on a website devoted to martial arts. We understant that a childs mindset at a certain age as to not be able to articulate a self-defense argument as such. The he hit me first statement is, or can be, a statement of he hit me, so I hit him back in defense of myself.
That is true, by their definition, crimes of passion are not rationalized, but the majority of us have the ability to realize that maybe it is a bad idea - due to the consequences. Have you ever been very mad and had the urge to lash out at someone? Most people have - aka road rage - but we don't do it, because we can stop and look at things objectively. There are some who can't or won't.
People ARE deterred by laws. I would say that laws are what deter people from doing most wrong things. There are plenty of things that are not ethically OR morally wrong, but we are prevented from doing by laws and social contracts.
I like the speeding example......There is nothing ethically OR morally wrong with speeding, but the law exists to keep order in society and to preserve general safety, just like most laws.
If we're talking old school Greek philosophy, there is plenty to look at and personally, I don't think that we need more of it. Plato and Socrates felt that the simple knowledge of "good" and virtue would keep people from doing wrong. But they also reasoned that no act was done without some form of reason behind it and that no one would intentionally commit an evil act. We have definately learned that this is not true. People DO perform evil acts....
But then we get into Moral relativism (aristotelian), if I believe that something is good and virtuous and that it will bring me happines, then it is ethical. Some do believe that killing in their own best interest is ethical.
and then we can get into the concept of intrinsic good. Which can never be reached......I can go on and on, but I think that what you meant to say was that we need more MORALS and less Ethics. Ethics are based in Reason, morals are more about the basic ideas of right and wrong (which Plato, Aristotle AND Socrates all said was LEARNED - meaning imprinted by society). The bottom line is that this is not a moral or ethical question. when you bring those concepts into a discussion of the death penalty, you're muddying the waters. It isn't about right and wrong, good and bad.....it is about what is best for society and keeping order for the greater good. Getting murderers and depraved human beings off of the streets - permanently if need be - is in the best interest of society.
That people deemed Not guilty by reason of insanity get off more or less Scot free (apologies to those of Gaelic descent) is untenable. What would be just and fair is a ruling of guilty but insane. Should one become sane after their conviction they should still pay for the crime. When an animal attacks a person it is put to death almost without exception, why? Because, animals do not have the mental capacity to know what they did was wrong. If a person lacks that same capacity, they should clearly be removed from society. To allow further acts of violence by the insane, would be, well, insane.
Doc_Jude
3rd Black Belt
How is the "Death Penalty" NOT an emotional appeal?
Please don't think that I'm for the abolition of LAW. I'm not.
The punishment must fit the crime, however. If no one but the innocent and "God" are witness to their innocence, then their blood is on the hands of the judges, and those that support them. Our legal system is not infallible, and if you support the death penalty, then their blood is on your hands too.
Innocent Men Executed?
OP
- Thread Starter
- #53
Yes, that is a concern. You'd think that it wouldn't take that long to uncover evidence, yet by looking at things like you linked, its amazing how things are found years later. Then again, I would bet that there are some cases, such as the one that I linked here to the Cheshire, Ct. home invasion/killings, in which the evidence points right to the two suspects. I really don't think that there would be any evidence anywhere, that would show that it wasn't these two that did that crime.
The idea that because a specific crime, theft for example isn't punishable by execution in society that it is "allowed" is ignorant and foolish. The worse the crime, the harsher the penalty. This has been the case in every civilization in history, with a few notable exceptions, where leftists were in charge. For instance, Pol Pot and his merry band killing people for the heinous "crime" of being educated or even "Looking" educated by wearing glasses...
The death penalty in the US is reserved for the most heinous crimes.
I'm not sure I follow you here. The point is that the argument of "wrongfully executed people" is an appeal to people's emtions.
From Wikipedia
"Appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy which uses the manipulation of the recipient's emotions, rather than valid logic, to win an argument. This kind of appeal to emotion is a type of red herring and encompasses several logical fallacies"
The point is that I question the validity of the wrongfully executed argument. Where is the data that supports this? The majority of it comes from places like "Human Rights Magazine" and "The National Coalition to abolish the Death Penalty" neither of those are even borderline non biased sources. Both of the reports that I have read to date (the ones in this article) are based solely on what seems to be speculation and manipulation of facts. If your facts are strong and hold up, you give references and background to your statistics....and don't base conclusions on reports COMMISSIONED and done by newspapers who can be good sources, but is questionable when they go looking for news.....news on closed cases.
First off, I find it a bit harsh to say that it is the fault of all who support the death penalty when any criminal is killed. Though I fully support it and don't mind that at all....I don't see why you would say that. The logic doesn't make sense. Does this also mean that I'm at fault for every abortion? Does it mean that I'm at fault for any crime that is committed that isn't against my personal ethical code (not moral)? I don't think so. I do think that it is yet another emotional appeal trying to instill guilt in those who truly have NOTHING to feel guilty about. We are ALL entitled to our opinions. Luckily most people who support the Death Penalty do so quietly and have no interest in the changing the mind of others, or worse trying to make them feel guilty for their views.
I'm fine with that...I can handle it is someone thinks that I am at fault because a mass murdered is given the death penalty. I'm perfectly happy being the executioner of someone who rapes and kills 15 women - and I have no problems if you say that the blood of someone who kills his 3 children and wife if put to death. And you know, I am comfortable with the system, I am comfortable with society's punishment system. I am also comfortable with the fact that it is possible that innocent men will be put to death. Do I WANT this to happen, NO...a RESOUNDING no. I do NOT think that innocent men should die for any reason. But I also think that the system has made every attempt to prevent this. It is not by any means infallible, but has a great deal of checks and balances. By the time that an innocent man makes it to the chair, there has to be a pretty long line of deceptions and set ups - and HORRIBLE lawyers - or EXTREMELY good ones on the opposition. Meaning that the world is against this person. Or POSSIBLY, they actually are guilty and are LYING. If, as you say, the only people who know the truth are the accused and God, then they are fighting perception and trying to justify why they were at the scene of the crime at the opportune moment in a position to look like they did it.
heretic888
Senior Master
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2002
- Messages
- 2,723
- Reaction score
- 60
Hi 5-0 Kenpo,
When making arguments such as this, it is important to consider the function of such policies. Appealing to consequences is only relevant in two contexts:
1) Increasing or decreasing the frequency of future behaviors.
2) Exacting revenge on others.
In regards to the first point, capital punishment has not been demonstrated to decrease the frequency of criminal behaviors. This is most probably due to the reason that most crimes which warrant the death penalty are generally crimes of passion.
In regards to the second point, this is almost always what underlies the arguments of most proponents of capital punishment. It just "feels good" to cause pain to those who have caused us pain, so this is of course a perfectly understandable and natural sentiment. That, however, doesn't make it right.
This is a Straw Man. I argued nothing of the sort.
What I am actually saying is that recapitulative violence, whose goal is to harm those who have harmed us, is wrong. It may feel justified, but its still wrong.
Unfortunately, you are being inexact with your logical articulations and collapsing the concept of self-defense violence with recapitulative violence. In the former, I use violence to stop one from exerting violence on me. In the latter, I use violence to "pay back" one who has previously exerted violence on me (which is generally after-the-fact).
heretic888
Senior Master
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2002
- Messages
- 2,723
- Reaction score
- 60
JBrainard
Senior Master
Here is what I immediately thought when I saw the title of this thread: Everyone here on this board is a martial artist of some sort. What are we all taught in regards to self defence? That you have no ethical or legal right to kill someone unless they are using lethal force against you. Now, once the death penalty candidate is captured, he is no longer a threat. He is isolated from society, surrounded only by the people who gaurd him. At that point, killing him surves no purpose to the the public.
