Kirth, I know you’re being half sarcastic half devil’s advocate there.
Yes! -- you pegged it 100%.
I have actually heard this more from the anti-death penalty folks.
Yeah, plenty of hypocrisy there, too, the way I see it. I get sick when I hear this sort of rationalization from anyone, but then again I've got admittedly weird views regarding quality vs. quantity of life.
Anyone convicted of any crime at all apparently "deserves" to be raped in prison and left without employment opportunities thereafter,I have actually heard this more from the anti-death penalty folks.
I only believe they deserve to be raped if they’re in there for rape.
Hoi Kirth. Good to see you still posting here, as well as Dove and others. I'm glad to know this crazy train is still chugging along.
When it comes to abortion, I, strangely enough, tend towards silence. Each situation is unique, and I view extreme points of view such as just putting the kid up for adoption or considering it as just another form of birth control a little off-putting. It's probably because I have no idea how it is I came to be here, I could have easily killed my mother(difficult pregnancy) and died twice while being born. I view each circumstance as individual, although I respect the opinions of others who feel that something broader must be done about the subject.
I only believe they deserve to be raped if they’re in there for rape.Anyone convicted of any crime at all apparently "deserves" to be raped in prison and left without employment opportunities thereafter,I have actually heard this more from the anti-death penalty folks.
On this we agree. I've heard stories of this happening from the handful of people I've known who went to prison.
I only believe they deserve to be raped if they’re in there for rape.Anyone convicted of any crime at all apparently "deserves" to be raped in prison and left without employment opportunities thereafter,I have actually heard this more from the anti-death penalty folks.
And I think we fail as a society if we allow criminals to do the dirty work for us, that we ourselves are not willing to do. If you think a rapist deserves to be raped as punishment, then drop your pants and do the job yourself, don't get someone else to do it and pat yourself on the back that your hands (or other body parts) are clean because you didn't do the act yourself.
And I think we fail as a society if we allow criminals to do the dirty work for us, that we ourselves are not willing to do. If you think a rapist deserves to be raped as punishment, then drop your pants and do the job yourself, don't get someone else to do it and pat yourself on the back that your hands (or other body parts) are clean because you didn't do the act yourself.I only believe they deserve to be raped if they’re in there for rape.Anyone convicted of any crime at all apparently "deserves" to be raped in prison and left without employment opportunities thereafter,I have actually heard this more from the anti-death penalty folks.
But what if you don't..uh..go that way?
And I think we fail as a society if we allow criminals to do the dirty work for us, that we ourselves are not willing to do. If you think a rapist deserves to be raped as punishment, then drop your pants and do the job yourself, don't get someone else to do it and pat yourself on the back that your hands (or other body parts) are clean because you didn't do the act yourself.I only believe they deserve to be raped if they’re in there for rape.Anyone convicted of any crime at all apparently "deserves" to be raped in prison and left without employment opportunities thereafter,I have actually heard this more from the anti-death penalty folks.
1.Because that would be illegal.
2.Because I have no interest in sticking my member in another mans rectum (rectum? darn near killed em!)3.By this logic no one who hasn’t acted as an executioner has any right to support the death penalty.
4.I kind of support the above logic. That being said get rid of problem # 1 I’m ready for my court appointed hood and unlubed broom stick.
Besides that it's not like when we execute someone we give the executioner a brick and tell him to have at it. We have machines to do the dirty deed. Why can’t this be the same way? Just need someone to draw up the plans for the rape-o-matic 5000.
It depends on the purpose of the said punishment. Raping a prisoner doesn't undo his crimes. It doesn't make him repentent, or make him a good citizen; instead it makes him angry/resentful/homicidal (for most), or suicidal (for others). Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that there exists no useful nor moral point to it at all, except to excite people who claim they're being virtuous by not doing it themselves -- like an imaginary porn video for people who claim they're not voyeurs.
I don't often agree with pres man, but on this topic he is absolutely correct. His post is right on the money, both from a moral standpoint and from a purely pragmatic one.
It depends on the purpose of the said punishment. Raping a prisoner doesn't undo his crimes. It doesn't make him repentent, or make him a good citizen; instead it makes him angry/resentful/homicidal (for most), or suicidal (for others). Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that there exists no useful nor moral point to it at all, except to excite people who claim they're being virtuous by not doing it themselves -- like an imaginary porn video for people who claim they're not voyeurs.
Really this could be said of any punishment for any crime. The reason I’m for the above stated punishment is that I’m a big believer in the whole “do onto others as you would have them do to you” thing. And I think someone being violated the way they violated someone else goes a lot further to showing someone what they did was wrong than sitting them in the same jail cell they’d be in for tax evasion.
Edit: However, I am not trying to make a case here to sway you to my way of thinking. My concept of justice is pretty damn harsh, and not only am I okay that there are people who disagree with me on this, but I'm kinda relived that this isn't how the world works. But gods help these kind of criminals if by some fluke I start making the rules.
Really this could be said of any punishment for any crime.
Disagree: if you execute a murderer or rapist, there is a 0% chance of that person ever committing a murder or rape from that point on. That to me is about the best outcome consistently possible, in those cases. (Rehabilitation would be better, but that's pie-in-the-sky at this point.) If Bernie Madoff had to pay off all the money he swindled with interest, then at least some restitution is made.
And I think someone being violated the way they violated someone else goes a lot further to showing someone what they did was wrong
If someone committed a rape, then they've conclusively demonstrated that they are mentally unable to form a connection between things they do and things done to them. This lack of empathy means that they're never going to feel that what they did was wrong, no matter how many times you do it to them. Realistically, it seems to me that wanting them raped has a lot less to do with justice than it does with mental masturbation or power-tripping of some kind -- because it's not really "harsh justice," insofar as it's not actually serving any end of justice of any kind except the "poetic" sort.
Of course, you can still want that for them, if that's your thing... but don't confuse it with serving any sort of ethical or pragmatic purpose.
Woah there Kirth. I had your position figured all wrong buddy. I thought you were in favor of jail time for rapists, not execution. In retrospect I suppose the ol’ rape-o-matic 5000 wouldn’t solve the problem on a permanent basis for people who didn’t believe what they did was wrong in the first place. However, while I certainly don’t think that death is too harsh a crime for rapists, it doesn’t have that ‘punishment fits the crime’ feel that I like. What say we split the difference and go with castration? Non chemical.
What say we split the difference and go with castration? Non chemical.
They've tried that before; the offenders, when released, went out and used implements instead of themselves: a bad outcome. Execution is still 100%, even if it lacks artistic elegance!
What say we split the difference and go with castration? Non chemical.They've tried that before; the offenders, when released, went out and used implements instead of themselves: a bad outcome. Execution is still 100%, even if it lacks artistic elegance!
Well Kirth, you've convinced me. Kill em all.
Well Kirth, you've convinced me. Kill em all.
Sadly, that's about the most practical thing available to us.
Criminal justice is still in the dark ages, compared to communications technology or latte flavoring or whatever.
We have spent trillions of dollars on social welfare here and what have we gotten in return? Trillions of dollars of national debt and tens of trillions of promises the government doesn't know how it's going to keep.Also, the middle class. :-)Are you saying the middle class would not exist without social welfare?
Seriously?! I'm not trying to be obtuse here,but I really don't follow your argument. I think the middle class probably pre-existed massive socialist welfare states.
It did. Started in the Middle Ages. After the waves of Black Death swept the lands, the people who had a skill (blacksmith, merchant, tanners, etc) became more valuable. Plus, as the feudal system broke down due to complication ("So, you owe me 39 days of labor for the land and 15 days of labor for the house, but I granted you special dispensation for your duties as my park warden . . .), money became the barter item of choice. Those who were more skilled earned more money.
Indeed. The Ascent of Money by Niall Ferguson has a very nice overview of this process. Can't stand Ferguson's politics infused modern history (wherein he forgives Pinochet and other dictators), but his pre-20th century stuff is great.
But I think DoveArrow was referring to the expansion of the middle class that took place in the 20th century, in large part due to the GI bill and associated social programs post-WW II, but also because of social improvements that had started to snowball in the late 19th century, and the continuing social movements of the 60s and 70s. That expansion happened for many reasons other than social spending, but without the GI bill (which was a massive, massive social entitlement) the middle class boom would have been much smaller.
Our views on state as power and violence are doubtless an unbridgeable gulf. I can't imagine any argument that would make me believe other wise. If one disobeys the dictates of the state the state uses violence to take your property, imprison or kill you. I'm not sure what you suggest the alternative is. Obviously this leads to a fundamental difference in what we believe government is permitted to do.
All I am saying is that either you learn to build a state that is seen to be representative, or you stay pissed off forever at being "forced" not to do things. People will always organize, be it at the local level (which we both agree we prefer), or a larger state or national level. To believe otherwise is to discount the social nature of humans. As such, it's rather important we figure out how to build social structures that are minimally coercive. There will never be complete agreement on what that means, but it is clear preferable to have structure close and local such that it is controllable, rather than far away. On that we agree.
My suggestion was to start building such structures, rather than endlessly b%~%~ing about Washington. That is all. There are anarchists that do this, and most of them are incorrectly written off by libertarians (and the mainstream) as hippies, which is both ideologically wrong and, frankly, offensive. Not saying you do that, but that's how your argumentation is coming across.
My second point is that I separate the here and now from the ideal future. I don't see how making millions of people's lives horrid is a good way to get from here to there. It's also completely unnecessary if we weren't all so set on destroying the government before alternative means of organization are in place.
You're reckoning without the authoritarian/social conservative obsession with passing judgment and ordaining punishment. The entire Middle East "deserves" to be nuked, because of the actions of terrorists from that region. If the IRA carried out a violent action within U.S. borders, all of Ireland (or the U.K. in general) would presumably "deserve" to be overrun. Anyone convicted of any crime at all apparently "deserves" to be raped in prison and left without employment opportunities thereafter, or simply killed out of hand (to me, the latter is far more humane at least).
But embryos don't deserve punishment, because they haven't been born yet, and thus haven't had a chance to incur the witch-hunters' ire.
Kirth: Will you marry me?
Well Kirth, you've convinced me. Kill em all.Sadly, that's about the most practical thing available to us.
Criminal justice is still in the dark ages, compared to communications technology or latte flavoring or whatever.
Wait...sorry. I just can't get onboard with murdering (err, sorry. executing*) rapists.
Marriage proposal rescinded, darn it.
* Yes, I know that death penalty advocates don't view it as murder; I'm being a smart-ass. :)
For example, when a friend of mine asked what my solution to illegal immigration was, I said require companies that do buisness in the United States to pay a comparable wage to their employees outside the United States.
No thanks, I'm not interested. The minimum wages in my country is around $20. Now, if America wants to mirror that, fair enough...
Wait...sorry. I just can't get onboard with murdering (err, sorry. executing*) rapists.
What are the alternatives? Until you can rehabilitate them (approximately zero success to date with that) or offer them something more humane (a max-security prison term is by almost any standard less so), then what else do you propose? Can't keep 'em in a bubble by themselves, economically-speaking.
In the real world, you pick the least bad from a set of universally bad choices.
Wait...sorry. I just can't get onboard with murdering (err, sorry. executing*) rapists.What are the alternatives? Until you can rehabilitate them (approximately zero success to date with that) or offer them something more humane (a max-security prison term is by almost any standard less so), then what else do you propose? Can't keep 'em in a bubble by themselves, economically-speaking.
In the real world, you pick the least bad from a set of universally bad choices.
I'm not sure how seriously to take you here - are you still playing devil's advocate?
Aren't you assuming a rather perfect legal system? Would you be ok with executing rapists if you knew that only 80 out of 100 had actually committed the crime, and the other 20 had not done it, but had been found guilty?
This sort of miscarriage of justice happens far more frequently than it should, and it's more difficult to correct the error when the death penalty has been applied.
What are the alternatives? Until you can rehabilitate them (approximately zero success to date with that) or offer them something more humane (a max-security prison term is by almost any standard less so), then what else do you propose? Can't keep 'em in a bubble by themselves, economically-speaking.
In the real world, you pick the least bad from a set of universally bad choices.
Murdering someone to prevent someone else from being raped never seems like it could be the "least bad."
Besides, if your criteria for execution is really "anyone with a long maximum security sentence," you're advocating execution for all sorts of offenses: Dealing large amounts of drugs, armed robbery, etc. Hell, even repeated non-violent felonies would qualify in some states.
Is changing prison conditions so that death isn't merciful in comparison really so impractical?
I'm not sure how seriously to take you here - are you still playing devil's advocate?Aren't you assuming a rather perfect legal system? Would you be ok with executing rapists if you knew that only 80 out of 100 had actually committed the crime, and the other 20 had not done it, but had been found guilty?
This sort of miscarriage of justice happens far more frequently than it should, and it's more difficult to correct the error when the death penalty has been applied.
Exactly. There are literally hundreds of cases of people being exonerated on death row.
I don't think he's being serious.
I'm not sure how seriously to take you here - are you still playing devil's advocate?Aren't you assuming a rather perfect legal system? Would you be ok with executing rapists if you knew that only 80 out of 100 had actually committed the crime, and the other 20 had not done it, but had been found guilty?
This sort of miscarriage of justice happens far more frequently than it should, and it's more difficult to correct the error when the death penalty has been applied.
Exactly. There are literally hundreds of cases of people being exonerated on death row.
I don't think he's being serious.
He must not be serious otherwise you then would have to decide what margin of innocent people being executed is acceptable.
Because people do get convicted for crimes they did not commit.
And on that note what do you do when you find out you have executed an innocent person?
Do you raise the standards of what is required for a guilty charge? (Thus letting more guilty people never get convicted for the lack of enough evidence.)
Do you admit that wrongfully convicted person was murdered by the state? What sort of compensation do you give to that person's estate and family? (Who may have a destroyed reputation, business, lost income and other issues.)
You're reckoning without the authoritarian/social conservative obsession with passing judgment and ordaining punishment. The entire Middle East "deserves" to be nuked, because of the actions of terrorists from that region. If the IRA carried out a violent action within U.S. borders, all of Ireland (or the U.K. in general) would presumably "deserve" to be overrun. Anyone convicted of any crime at all apparently "deserves" to be raped in prison and left without employment opportunities thereafter, or simply killed out of hand (to me, the latter is far more humane at least).
But embryos don't deserve punishment, because they haven't been born yet, and thus haven't had a chance to incur the witch-hunters' ire.
Embryos aren't people. They're just a grouping of cells with the potential to become people.
Embryos aren't people. They're just a grouping of cells with the potential to become people.
DANGER, WILL ROBINSON!
Let's not start that fight. It's beside the point, and not going to lead anywhere productive.
Aren't you assuming a rather perfect legal system? Would you be ok with executing rapists if you knew that only 80 out of 100 had actually committed the crime, and the other 20 had not done it, but had been found guilty?
No; on the contrary, I'm assuming an exceptionally imperfect one. Pretend for a moment that we execute 100 innocent people, mistakenly convicted, over "X" number of years. Assume also that the actual murderers and rapists executed would have potentially victimized 1,000 people if released on parole. We've made a lousy choice, but the alternative is ten times worse. THERE IS NO "GOOD" CHOICE. This sort of choosing between lousy options is regrettable but necessary precisely because the system is imperfect: rehabilitation rates are SO low, compared to redecivitism rates, that one cannot pragmatically make a case for ever releasing violent criminals.
Speaking personally, if mistakenly convicted and sentenced to a max-security life sentence, I'd MUCH rather be executed at once. YMMV.
With regards to non-violent crimes, I'd end the "war on drugs" immediately, if I had the power to do so. Treatment seems prerrable to prison, to me. Theft penalties would have to be reworked, because prison (a) doesn't seem to work as a deterrent, and (b) doesn't rehabilitate the thieves, but rather trains them to be better criminals -- the exact opposite outcome that we'd want.
As soon as someone develops an effective means of rehabilitation, all of the above can be scrapped in its favor. But that day isn't here yet by a long shot, and it's naive to pretend like it is.
I'm not sure how seriously to take you here - are you still playing devil's advocate?Aren't you assuming a rather perfect legal system? Would you be ok with executing rapists if you knew that only 80 out of 100 had actually committed the crime, and the other 20 had not done it, but had been found guilty?
This sort of miscarriage of justice happens far more frequently than it should, and it's more difficult to correct the error when the death penalty has been applied.
Exactly. There are literally hundreds of cases of people being exonerated on death row.
I don't think he's being serious.
He must not be serious otherwise you then would have to decide what margin of innocent people being executed is acceptable.
Because people do get convicted for crimes they did not commit.
And on that note what do you do when you find out you have executed an innocent person?
Do you raise the standards of what is required for a guilty charge? (Thus letting more guilty people never get convicted for the lack of enough evidence.)
Do you admit that wrongfully convicted person was murdered by the state? What sort of compensation do you give to that person's estate and family? (Who may have a destroyed reputation, business, lost income and other issues.)
A tough nut to crack, whether you're conservative, liberal or something in between. I'm actually in favor of the death penalty, but I think it should be used only in cases where someone is truly guilty of the crime they commit. It sounds silly in words, I know, but in practice, I would like to raise the standards for a death penalty guilty charge. I also think it should be used for more than just murder- gross illegal narcotic sale, manufacturing and transfer, rape(although the standards for guilt on this would be quite high and certainly DNA based), child abuse(not necessarily neglect), and a few other heinous crimes. I also think that witnesses should face serious prison sentences for perjury within these court cases, and that prosecutors should face more than absolutely nothing for slotting up their case.
Embryos aren't people. They're just a grouping of cells with the potential to become people.DANGER, WILL ROBINSON!
Let's not start that fight. It's beside the point, and not going to lead anywhere productive.
The problem with the whole climate change thing is that no one cares about any of the science in any way, except to pretend to support their politically-prdicated uninformed stance. It's all just a way to prove you're "with the team." All good liberals must predict doom, no matter what. All good conservatives must claim it's a hoax and mock the idea as much as possible, no matter what. As near as I can tell -- and this thread has given good support to this hypothesis -- nobody much gives a rat's ass what's actually happening, or what any of the research actually says, unless they think they can spin it for their "side." Certainly, even if the science became 100% settled, I'm pretty sure that no one on either side would change their opinion anyway.
The science is pretty much settled in at least its over all direction (just not on the full extent). Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. Some organisations hold non-committal positions.
People also use the wrong label for the current climate direction. The term global warming is misinterpreted to mean everywhere will be warmer and any cold snap is an 'a-ha' moment for the nay sayers. The more correct term is climate change as the global temperature average is increasing but that means that different parts of the world are affected differently.
I live in Edmonton Alberta Canada and on Dec 13 of 2009 we had one of the coldest days ever.
Environment Canada recorded a frigid -46.1 C, or -58.4 C with the wind chill
(-42.88 ºF or -73.12 ºF with the wind chill). People use this as an excuse for there is no global warming. BS. The winters here are milder each year, the summers drier, and there hasn't been a blizzard in years (it used to happen at least biannually when I was a kid 20 years ago). Snow levels from when settlers first came here
I am worried what will happen with this. I don't believe the world will end or that civilization is doomed. But I do find it distressing that people are only concerned with the fact that their winters should be warmer.
I worry about environmental changes for people, animals, insects and plants. Some animals, plants ands insects will make great gains, some will become rare and some will become extinct. Doesn't this bother people?
Embryos aren't people. They're just a grouping of cells with the potential to become people.DANGER, WILL ROBINSON!
Let's not start that fight. It's beside the point, and not going to lead anywhere productive.
Yeah! The WACKY WAVING INFLATABLE ARM FLAILING TUBE MEN game!
That wasn't exactly how you said it, you said "have a child".
One of the problems I experience when I'm trying out a new line of thought is that I obsessively edit my posts to the point that I forget what I've said. At one point, I had included a line that said bringing a child to term is a financial hardship. I now see that I deleted that part out. Sorry about that.
So let me get this straight, the only way conservatives (or anyone against abortion on demand) can legitmately be critical in your view is if they can make it so that women can be pregnant without showing any outward signs. Is that correct? Society has pretty much given up on "shaming" women for being single mothers (last time it was really pushed was by Dan Quayle and we saw how that turned out for him). If a particular family or group of friends still has "traditional views" on this, well there isn't really much we as a society can do to stop that.
No. I was trying to suggest that if conservatives want women to give unwanted children up for adoption, they should do more to encourage women to bring these children to term. For example, they could provide tax breaks to these women in order to cover their medical costs, pass tougher laws to discourage discrimination against pregnant women in the workplace, and encourage people to support women who decide to bring unwanted children to term.
He must not be serious otherwise you then would have to decide what margin of innocent people being executed is acceptable.Because people do get convicted for crimes they did not commit.
And on that note what do you do when you find out you have executed an innocent person?
Do you raise the standards of what is required for a guilty charge? (Thus letting more guilty people never get convicted for the lack of enough evidence.)
Do you admit that wrongfully convicted person was murdered by the state? What sort of compensation do you give to that person's estate and family? (Who may have a destroyed reputation, business, lost income and other issues.)
I don't know if quoting yourself is the most obvious form of ass-hattery but...
I was just thinking. If murder (defined as the premeditated killing of an innocent person) is punished by execution, then who gets executed when it is found that the state has got it wrong and executed an innocent person? Is it the executioner, the attorney, the judge, the jury or the initial police investigator? Or some combination of the above?
I was just thinking. If murder (defined as the premeditated killing of an innocent person) is punished by execution, then who gets executed when it is found that the state has got it wrong and executed an innocent person? Is it the executioner, the attorney, the judge, the jury or the initial police investigator? Or some combination of the above?
All of them, it's the only way to be sure. ;)
All of them, it's the only way to be sure. ;)
I was just thinking. If murder (defined as the premeditated killing of an innocent person) is punished by execution, then who gets executed when it is found that the state has got it wrong and executed an innocent person? Is it the executioner, the attorney, the judge, the jury or the initial police investigator? Or some combination of the above?
This is why I mentioned that I want prosecutors to face more than absolutely nothing in terms of messing up a case. Not that I want prosecutors killed, mind.
Aren't you assuming a rather perfect legal system? Would you be ok with executing rapists if you knew that only 80 out of 100 had actually committed the crime, and the other 20 had not done it, but had been found guilty?No; on the contrary, I'm assuming an exceptionally imperfect one. Pretend for a moment that we execute 100 innocent people, mistakenly convicted, over "X" number of years. Assume also that the actual murderers and rapists executed would have potentially victimized 1,000 people if released on parole. We've made a lousy choice, but the alternative is ten times worse. THERE IS NO "GOOD" CHOICE. This sort of choosing between lousy options is regrettable but necessary precisely because the system is imperfect: rehabilitation rates are SO low, compared to redecivitism rates, that one cannot pragmatically make a case for ever releasing violent criminals.
Speaking personally, if mistakenly convicted and sentenced to a max-security life sentence, I'd MUCH rather be executed at once. YMMV.
With regards to non-violent crimes, I'd end the "war on drugs" immediately, if I had the power to do so. Treatment seems prerrable to prison, to me. Theft penalties would have to be reworked, because prison (a) doesn't seem to work as a deterrent, and (b) doesn't rehabilitate the thieves, but rather trains them to be better criminals -- the exact opposite outcome that we'd want.
As soon as someone develops an effective means of rehabilitation, all of the above can be scrapped in its favor. But that day isn't here yet by a long shot, and it's naive to pretend like it is.
We may differ fundamentally on how we see the pros and cons of the choice - I tend to agree with you that it may be a choice between evils.
But that said, I'm not sure that the rate of recidivism is 100%. The point at which the rate of recidivism outweighs the rate of false convictions may be relevant to your point of view. That is, if 80% of guilty people will commit their crime again if released, you think it is worth executing everyone convicted of the crime, even if conviction rates are only 60% accurate (40% of individuals executed were actually innocent)?
Where is the balance point?
For me, I would much rather err on the other side, and not execute anyone. I think it's better to hold out hope for rehabilitation (as naive as it may be in some cases, but then why is parole an option in these cases?), than to be unable to correct an error that lead to the execution of an innocent.
Even if there is a serial killer out there who confesses and is found with body parts from 30 different people. In this extreme case, it is rather easy to think that the death penalty should apply.
But, what if the killer refuses to identify the victims if he is to be executed? Isn't the closure for the victims' families worth not executing this killer? I certainly would not want him to get away with his crimes, but from what I've read, victims' family members don't necessarily feel better when the killer is executed.
So what is the point of it? Is justice served better by killing a killer than by giving the families a chance to know for sure what happened?
The point at which the rate of recidivism outweighs the rate of false convictions may be relevant to your point of view. That is, if 80% of guilty people will commit their crime again if released, you think it is worth executing everyone convicted of the crime, even if conviction rates are only 60% accurate (40% of individuals executed were actually innocent)
I agree that it's a matter of balance; I tend to think of ethics in terms of total aggregate suffering caused/prevented. If one solution prevents more suffering than another in the end, even if it inevitably causes some, we've made a better trade. For example, if we take your 80% recidivism rate and assume only one later victim per paroled murderer (0 per paroled false conviction), the balance point is about 55% accuracy if we do a straight-up comparison of people saved vs. people wrongly executed. The 60% accuracy you cite is above that line, but only slightly so, so it's the better choice by a very narrow margin.
Assuming only a 50% recidivism rate, the balance point would still be about 45/100 "false positives." 60% accuracy falls below this line; you're excuting more people than you're saving at that point. I do not believe, however, than anywhere near 40% of convicted murderers are actually innocent.
Note that these numbers are the same for life in prison (assuming no chance of parole, no reduced sentences and absolutely no escapes) vs. execution. So the question is whether one is more humane than the other, which remains a potential issue for disagreement.
The "Magic McGuffin," secret knowledge that is somehow impervious to all other methods of discovery, is an interesting thought exercise, but not something that will come up often enough in real life to matter one way or the other. However, if every murderer knows that he or she can commute a capital sentence by simply not talking, then you've just left execution vs. life w/o parole to the prisoner's option. (As one of the people who would rather be executed than imprisoned, I'm not necessarily against that possibility.)
If taking of an innocent human life is murder, and murders should be given the death penalty, then whom do we execute for a wrongful execution? Because I assure you, we have executed people wrongly, and will again. In what way are those responsible not murders? The act was certainly premeditated.
As for the argument that we should murder criminals because it's the best practical alternative is...undeserving of the name. The state is justified in preemptive murder because of a high rate of recidivism? Ridiculous. We simply can't hold people responsible FOR SOMETHING THEY HAVEN'T DONE because we deem it statistically likely that they'll do it. It's unworthy of you, Kirth.
If taking of an innocent human life is murder, And murders should be given the death penalty, Whom do we execute for a wrongful execution? Because I assure you, we have executed people wrongly, and will again. In what way are those responsible not murders? The act was certainly premeditated.
Have you heard of Good Samaritan laws? Do you reject their validity? Prosecute them for falsifying things or for incompetence, sure, but not for doing what they're supposed to be doing.
As for the argument that we should murder criminals because it's the best practical alternative is...unworthy of the name. The state is justified in preemptive murder because of a high rate of recidivism? Ridiculous. It's unworthy of you, Kirth.
I base my opinion on net suffering prevented overall. You base yours on pity for the individual. Evidently you and I disagree on the Trolley Problem as well -- I always vote to save the 5 people at the expense of the one innocent. I'm not going to brand your more narrow view as "unworthy," but I definitely don't see how, ethically-speaking, it's any "better" than mine.
EDIT: Saw your edit, and still strongly disagree. We can hold people responsible for something THEY HAVE DONE BEFORE, and are statistically more than likely to do again. Sometimes we have to make hard choices, to serve the greater good.
Embryos aren't people. They're just a grouping of cells with the potential to become people.
Just to clear a point up, an embryo is a life form, (excluding cloning) a unique lifeform different from the two parents, correct?
Now is it a "person", that is really the issue. For example, you can't be charged with murder if you were to kill a dog or a tapeworm (a type of parasite), correct? So the charge of murder requires that the victim be a "person", am I right? This is why doctors that do abortions are not guilty of murder, because they are not killing a person, but a parasite (much like a tapeworm).
Seems pretty clear, right? Except it is not.
People can be charged with murder who have killed a fetus. For example, Scott Peterson was convicted of first degree murder in the death of his wife, and second degree murder in the case of his unborn child. But if the child was unborn, it was not a person, and not being a person it couldn't be "murdered" (a charge that requires the victim to be a "person").
So a fetus is not a person, except when it is.
Seems pretty clear, right? Except it is not. People can be charged with murder who have killed a fetus. So a fetus is not a person, except when it is.
Your argument is disengenuous in two ways: (1) the assumption that there is no difference between "blastoid" and "fetus," and (2) that a specific legal precedent somehow dictates that all physical definitions fit it.
Prince, you've stated that your views of justice are harsh. What do you have in mind? Also, for errors that may be made along the way(since nobody's perfect)?
This is why I mentioned that I want prosecutors to face more than absolutely nothing in terms of messing up a case. Not that I want prosecutors killed, mind.All of them, it's the only way to be sure. ;)
I was just thinking. If murder (defined as the premeditated killing of an innocent person) is punished by execution, then who gets executed when it is found that the state has got it wrong and executed an innocent person? Is it the executioner, the attorney, the judge, the jury or the initial police investigator? Or some combination of the above?
Prosecutors that willfully falsify evidence in a murder case? I got no problem with them suffering the same fate they abused their power to allow to happen to someone else.
In the case where they tried to do the right thing and things just worked out wrong? Nope, I don't see punishing them for that. Of course if it occurs often enough, then they should be removed from that position as they are obviously incompetent.
Have you heard of Good Samaritan laws? Do you reject their validity?I have, and I don't. The point is that good samaritans don't intend to hurt anyone; those carrying out the death penalty quite clearly intend to kill someone, whether in the name of the greater good or not.
I base my opinion on net suffering prevented overall. You base yours on pity for the individual. Evidently you and I disagree on the Trolley Problem as well -- I always vote to save the 5 people at the expense of the one innocent.I'm not going to brand your more narrow view as "unworthy," but I definitely don't see how, ethically-speaking, it's any "better" than mine.
EDIT: Saw your edit, and disagree. Sometimes we have to make hard choices, to serve the greater good.
Sorry, the trolley problem doesn't apply, because it assumes certain death on both counts, which is not the situation here.
I wonder: What other data would you accept for preemptive execution? If we could take someone who has never committed any crime, but with, based on other behaviors and habits, a 90% certainty of raping an average of five people before eventually being caught, are you actually telling me you'd support MURDERING that person in the name of the "greater good?" Do we need to prove causation, or just correlation?
No matter the odds, it is never certain a given individual will re-offend. To deny a chance for redemption, and to rob humanity of freedom of choice, is to destroy what makes us people; whatever is left isn't worth saving.
As for saying it isn't "worthy" of you; that wasn't a dig, I just don't think this position meets your normally very high standards for rigorous thought.
The point at which the rate of recidivism outweighs the rate of false convictions may be relevant to your point of view. That is, if 80% of guilty people will commit their crime again if released, you think it is worth executing everyone convicted of the crime, even if conviction rates are only 60% accurate (40% of individuals executed were actually innocent)I agree that it's a matter of balance; I tend to think of ethics in terms of total aggregate suffering caused/prevented. If one solution prevents more suffering than another in the end, even if it inevitably causes some, we've made a better trade. For example, if we take your 80% recidivism rate and assume only one later victim per paroled murderer (0 per paroled false conviction), the balance point is about 55% accuracy if we do a straight-up comparison of people saved vs. people wrongly executed. The 60% accuracy you cite is above that line, but only slightly so, so it's the better choice by a very narrow margin.
Assuming only a 50% recidivism rate, the balance point would still be about 45/100 "false positives." 60% accuracy falls below this line; you're excuting more people than you're saving at that point. I do not believe, however, than anywhere near 40% of convicted murderers are actually innocent.
Note that these numbers are the same for life in prison (assuming no chance of parole, no reduced sentences and absolutely no escapes) vs. execution. So the question is whether one is more humane than the other, which remains a potential issue for disagreement.
I think I see where you're coming from here - I disagree, but I understand. The numbers were just meant as an example to illustrate the concept - I'm sure they're not accurate, and that 40% is high (I sincerely hope it's high, at any rate!).
The "Magic McGuffin," secret knowledge that is somehow impervious to all other methods of discovery, is an interesting thought exercise, but not something that will come up often enough in real life to matter one way or the other. However, if every murderer knows that he or she can commute a capital sentence by simply not talking, then you've just left execution vs. life w/o parole to the prisoner's option.
No, it may not come up very often, but I would still venture that it matters. The threat of the death penalty may also matter more often in the other direction, and cause innocent people to plead guilty to a lesser charge/sentence to avoid the risk. We may differ here too with respect to the pros and cons of this.
Another question I have though (not necessarily for you Kirth, if you don't believe this) - I don't understand how people can be pro death penalty while at the same time being for a smaller government, citing (e.g.) that they don't trust the government to run a health care service, or don't want the government intruding on their lives. It seems to me that if the government can't be trusted to provide health care, why should it be trusted with the power of life and death over its citizens via the criminal justice system?
Can someone who believes this shed any light on it? Am I just mixing up my conservatives with my libertarians?
If we could take someone never convicted of any crime, but with, say, a 90% certainty of raping an average of ten people before being caught, are you actually telling me you'd support MURDERING that person?
What if I turn into a fire-breathing dragon tomorrow and destroy Manhattan through no fault of my own by accidentally breathing fire? Your scenario is equally unlikely. My response, therefore, is "not applicable."
I just don't think this position meets your normally very high standards for rigorous thought.
If by "normally very high standard" you mean "happens to coincide with your opinion," there's nothing for me to say here.
Seems pretty clear, right? Except it is not. People can be charged with murder who have killed a fetus. So a fetus is not a person, except when it is.Your argument is disengenuous in two ways: (1) the assumption that there is no difference between "blastoid" and "fetus," and (2) that a specific legal precedent somehow dictates that all physical definitions fit it.
So, first trimester, not a "person", got it.
Where/when does the personhood occur?
Note: I actually would be fine with the legal definition being that a parasitic human-lifeform isn't a "person" until after the first trimester. Heck, let's follow the thoughts of the court that decided Roe-v.-Wade, and suggest that up to the third trimester the lifeform is not a "person". I would just like some definitive legal definition, instead of the schizophrenic legal view that is out there now. In some cases it requires that the lifeform to be born to be considered a person (are they a person during "partial birth" procedures?), in other cases they are considered a person when not born yet (see various murder cases of pregnant women).
I disagree, but I understand.
That's often the best outcome we can hope for, in this life. Thank you, Seabryn -- and let me add that it's a pleasure discussing these things with you.