Public Execution: Is it alright? - General

[QUOTE=Valnar;37094750]Why is the only argument for the death penalty vengeance? You aren't looking to fix anything in society you are looking to give people revenge, revenge is not justice. Let me tell you what is morally problematic, the fact that people have and will continue to be wrongfully executed. At least in a system where life imprisonment is the harshest sentence people who are actually innocent can still have a chance to recover. Of course death row and trials and all of those others count as part of the cost of execution, because they it is necessary part of the process. Are you going to actually look at the entirety of what I quoted or any part of the paper I linked? Such as the part of how those numbers were [U]reasonable estimates[/U]. Or are you just going to condescendingly dismiss my evidence without actually providing any on your own? No you aren't, because life imprisonment is still a valid form of punishment. Life imprisonment is less morally questionable, generally cheaper or at least the same cost of execution, and allows wrongfully convicted people at least a chance of returning to a normal life. Does that not make life imprisonment a better choice for society?[/QUOTE] I agree that the death penalty does not tackle the cause of crime. I don't believe I stated it did so in anyway. This being true does not absolve those who commit crimes from punishment however. We should punish those who commit crimes, whilst working to tackle their causes. I didn't allude or state I was against this in anyway however. There is, as you said, also the problem of incorrect execution, as there is inocrrect imprisonment, something we should tackle wholheartedly in both cases. I've already read the paper beforehand for a class, and my point still stands, it is not empirically tested, and furthermore, we do not price justice in Pounds or Dollars, and we never have. Does life inprisonment provide a better choice? - Questionable, many see the law as a tool to punish, some to rehabilitate. If you sit on one side or the other you will always disagree about which side is better.

[QUOTE=Benf199105;37094783]I agree that the death penalty does not tackle the cause of crime. I don't believe I stated it did so in anyway. This being true does not absolve those who commit crimes from punishment however. We should punish those who commit crimes, whilst working to tackle their causes. I didn't allude or state I was against this in anyway however. There is, as you said, also the problem of incorrect execution, as there is inocrrect imprisonment, something we should tackle wholheartedly in both cases. I've already read the paper beforehand for a class, and my point still stands, it is not empirically tested, and furthermore, we do not price justice in Pounds or Dollars, and we never have. Does life inprisonment provide a better choice? - Questionable, many see the law as a tool to punish, some to rehabilitate. If you sit on one side or the other you will always disagree about which side is better.[/QUOTE] If the death penalty doesn't tackle the cause of crime, doesn't deal with criminals any more effectively than imprisonment and has much worse ramifications for those who are falsely convicted than why is it a better punishment than imprisonment?

[QUOTE=Valnar;37094873]If the death penalty doesn't tackle the cause of crime, doesn't deal with criminals any more effectively than imprisonment and has much worse ramifications for those who are falsely convicted than why is it a better punishment imprisonment?[/QUOTE] Imprisoning someone doesn't deal with the causes of crime either. I don't know exactly what you mean by "deal with criminals any more effectively" I only support the death penalty in what in english law is pertained to be "morally certain" (Look up Hyam v DPP or Lord Hailsham if you haven't heard the term). Thus the ramifications part of your argument is something I agree with and aim to minimise as much as possible. Thus it's at least equal, and could be described as much better from a retributionary standpoint. Reformist standpoint, it's obviously worse, but it someone knowingly slaughters 20 people, like Harris and Klebold or Timothy McVeigh, or Charles Manson, I think they deserve an adequate punishment, and imprisonment is not adequate given the nature and fallout of their acts.

[QUOTE=Audio-Surfer;37093999]Any form of punishment is a cop-out. You're attacking the effect and not the cause of the problem.[/QUOTE] this x a million, exactly my thoughts.

[QUOTE=Benf199105;37094916]Imprisoning someone doesn't deal with the causes of crime. [/QUOTE] Ok, so execution doesn't deal with the cause of crime better than imprisonment [QUOTE] I don't know exactly what you mean by "deal with criminals any more effectively" [/QUOTE] A criminal who is imprisoned for life and one who is executed are both taken out of society and thus can't commit their crime again. [QUOTE] I only support the death penalty in what in english law is pertained to be "morally certain" (Look up Hyam v DPP or Lord Hailsham if you haven't heard the term). Thus the ramifications part of your argument is something I agree with and aim to minimise as much as possible.[/QUOTE] So are you implying that there is some ratio of wrongful executions to correct executions greater than 0 that makes it an acceptable form of punishment over imprisonment? Again you are evading my question I have posed a couple of times. Why is the death penalty a better form of punishment than life imprisonment in any regard other than vengeance?

[QUOTE=Valnar;37095013]Ok so there it doesn't do anything better than imprisonment A criminal who is imprisoned for life and one who is executed are both taken out of society and thus can't commit their crime again. So are you implying that there is some ratio of wrongful executions to correct executions greater than 0 that makes it an acceptable form of punishment over imprisonment? Again you are evading my question I have posed a couple of times. Why is the death penalty a better form of punishment than life imprisonment in any regard other than vengeance?[/QUOTE] To answer your question - it is a matter of equality. Treating two people the same. If you are killed, the only adequate ramification for the person who killed you, is to also be killed. You act unjustly to the one who was killed if you extend a better life to the person who unlawfully ended theit life. That's what I believe anyway. Simply put, if you were to weigh up the costs in a sort of hedonistic calculus (using Utils for example) approach it would be something like: [B]Murderer kills victim[/B] : Killer = 0utils Victim = -100utils [B]Imprison the Killer:[/B] Killer = Any number between 0utils and -99utils (as life is always greater than death) Victim = -100 Killer is still alive and even though he is in prison he at least gets to experience life, meaning his number is always greater than the victim. [B]Execute the killer:[/B] Killer = -100utils Victim = -100utils Equality. You can substitute any numbers in there; But my premise is thus: Life is always greater than no life. Thus, even an imprisoned life is more prefferable to no life at all. Thus, by extending the killer a continuing life, you treat them better than the innocent victim. I accept you may not agree with the premise, so we won't agree.

[QUOTE=Benf199105;37095096]To answer your question - it is a matter of equality. Treating two people the same. If you are killed, the only adequate ramification for the person who killed you, is to also be killed. You act unjustly to the one who was killed if you extend a better life to the person who unlawfully ended theit life. That's what I believe anyway. Simply put, if you were to weigh up the costs in a sort of hedonistic calculus (using Utils for example) approach it would be something like: [B]Murderer kills victim[/B] : Killer = 0utils Victim = -100utils [B]Imprison the Killer:[/B] Killer = Any number between 0utils and -99utils (as life is always greater than death) Victim = -100 Killer is still alive and even though he is in prison he at least gets to experience life, meaning his number is always greater than the victim. [B]Execute the killer:[/B] Killer = -100utils Victim = -100utils Equality. You can substitute any numbers in there; But my premise is thus: Life is always greater than no life. Thus, even an imprisoned life is more prefferable to no life at all. Thus, by extending the killer a continuing life, you treat them better than the innocent victim. I accept you may not agree with the premise, so we won't agree.[/QUOTE] I just can't see how the death penalty can work in the way you want it to work, especially since now you have put what is essentially a value on human life. Not only that but I can't see ever having an acceptable amount of innocent executions because I don't believe there is an acceptable amount.

[QUOTE=Valnar;37095264]I just can't see how the death penalty can work in the way you want it to work, especially since now you have put what is essentially a value on human life. Not only that but I can't see ever having an acceptable amount of innocent executions because I don't believe there is an acceptable amount.[/QUOTE] The only thing I support the death penalty for is the equality of outcomes for the victim and perpatrator. I'm not valuing a human life, it's just a way to illustrate what I mean when I say "treating people equally". Innocent deaths happen in all walks of life, not just in the justice system. The number of innocent executions when compared to murders is miniscule, fractional, and so small it is almost uncountable. Maybe we should worry about stopping the thousands of murders before we worry about the tiny amount of false executions (not saying either is a higher priority, in a perfect world we'd have no murders, and thus no punishments).

[QUOTE=Benf199105;37094738]You're bringing in an emotional response that isn't anything to do with logic. - "barbaric, disgusting" etc. Stick to you're own rules OP. Furthermore, the "an eye for an eye" analogy isn't that way at all. It only makes those who wronged blind, we aren't blinding the innocent remember. Also on your point of "they don't have better quality of life". Thats semi-retarded. Life > no life, thus a killer who continues living has a better quality of life, even at it's most insufferable, when compared to their victim, as death is non-comparable to life. Try again "bucko".[/QUOTE] Implying that murder can ever be logical, and that the whole concept that you're peddling isn't an emotional response to what you believe to be a terrible event deserving of extreme retribution. Hypocrite.

[QUOTE=Clementine;37095514]Implying that murder can ever be logical, [/quote] You asked in the OP for Logic and reasoning, hence the logical approach. If anything you implied it could by stating that we should use logic and reasoning in the OP. [QUOTE=Clementine;37085369]Basically the whole point of this thread is to see if anyone actually thinks its an acceptable action, and to see their [B]logic and reasoning for such a stance.[/B][/QUOTE] [quote]and that the whole concept that you're peddling isn't an emotional response to what you believe to be a terrible event deserving of extreme retribution. Hypocrite.[/QUOTE] I've brought in no emotional response, unlike you did in your earlier posts. Nor have I made a normative claim about what murder is or what it entails. All i've said is that I believe in equal treatment for the killer and the victim. There is no emotive response here, only the logical premise that life is always preferable to no-life. I urge you to read more carefully. (It also doesn't matter if I did have an emotive reponse to murder and retribution, as I haven't used it to justify my standpoint, I've only used logic reasoned easily from a premise (albeit one which can be contested without emotive reactions aswell)).

[QUOTE=Benf199105;37095591]You asked in the OP for Logic and reasoning, hence the logical approach. If anything you implied it could by stating that we should use logic and reasoning in the OP. I've brought in no emotional response, unlike you did in your earlier posts. Nor have I made a normative claim about what murder is or what it entails. All i've said is that I believe in equal treatment for the killer and the victim. There is no emotive response here, only the logical premise that life is always preferable to no-life. I urge you to read more carefully. (It also doesn't matter if I did have an emotive reponse to murder and retribution, as I haven't used it to justify my standpoint, I've only used logic reasoned easily from a premise (albeit one which can be contested without emotive reactions aswell)).[/QUOTE] I did ask for logic and reasoning, I didn't ask for a "they killed people so they deserve to die!" Because that's neither logical or reasonable, its founded in emotion. Either way, I don't see why emotion has no place in justice, if we have no emotion then that really opens up the door for some terrible shit to come, and a society with no emotion is a fucking nightmare.

[QUOTE=Clementine;37095662]I did ask for logic and reasoning, I didn't ask for a "they killed people so they deserve to die!" Because that's neither logical or reasonable, its founded in emotion.[/quote] You didn't ask for it, and you didn't get it. Again, if you direct some of your angst towards careful reading you might avoid these issues. It is exactly both logical and reasonable. Calling execution "barbaric" or "disgusting" is not logical, it's an emotive response. [quote]Either way, I don't see why emotion has no place in justice, if we have no emotion then that really opens up the door for some terrible shit to come, and a society with no emotion is a fucking nightmare.[/QUOTE] See now you're going the wrong way, because as soon as you bring emotion into justice you get mob rule and public stoning of homosexuals, or cheating wives. Or hanging suspected paedophiles or burning witches, along with whatever else illicits an emotional response from the people in control of the state, very much the opposite of what we want from a judicial system - fair, balanced, and blind. I don't think you even know what you want, or you do, but cannot justify it with even basic reasoning or logic. Do you want logic and reasoning or emotion?

[QUOTE=Benf199105;37095591]You asked in the OP for Logic and reasoning, hence the logical approach. If anything you implied it could by stating that we should use logic and reasoning in the OP. I've brought in no emotional response, unlike you did in your earlier posts. Nor have I made a normative claim about what murder is or what it entails. All i've said is that I believe in equal treatment for the killer and the victim. There is no emotive response here, only the logical premise that life is always preferable to no-life. I urge you to read more carefully. (It also doesn't matter if I did have an emotive reponse to murder and retribution, as I haven't used it to justify my standpoint, I've only used logic reasoned easily from a premise (albeit one which can be contested without emotive reactions aswell)).[/QUOTE] The Eye for an eye principle is irrational, why do you bring it up? The reason the death penalty exists is to keep a community safe, not because of retribution.

[QUOTE=DeEz;37095788]The Eye for an eye principle is irrational, why do you bring it up? The reason the death penalty exists is to keep a community safe, not because of retribution.[/QUOTE] I don't know if that was directed at me, but I didn't bring it up, the other poster did. I disagree with it wholeheartedly on the issue of muder. Furthermore, I agree with your second point. Not only is is retributive to some, and a deterrent (the reverse has been found empirically however), but it also removes the murderers from society in a permanent way, where they can never harm anyone again.

[QUOTE=DeEz;37095788]The Eye for an eye principle is irrational, why do you bring it up? The reason the death penalty exists is to keep a community safe, not because of retribution.[/QUOTE] How does imprisonment not keep society as safe as the death penalty would when they both remove the criminal from society?

[QUOTE=Valnar;37095926]How does imprisonment not keep society as safe as the death penalty would when they both remove the criminal from society?[/QUOTE] You can escape from prison. Be released, or continue to kill on the inside.

[QUOTE=Benf199105;37095804]I disagree with it wholeheartedly on the issue of murder.[/QUOTE] But you said that you did. [QUOTE=Benf199105;37095339]The only thing I support the death penalty for is the equality of outcomes for the victim and perpatrator.[/QUOTE] Equality of outcomes in a death penalty implies a murder. This is a way of applying an Eye for an eye. Do you or do you not support the principle? Furthermore, the way the system works right now makes the death penalty a lot more expensive than if you were to abolish it. In a lot of cases it's actually cheaper to lock people up for life without parole.

[QUOTE=DeEz;37095959]But you said that you did. Equality of outcomes in a death penalty implies a murder. This is a way of applying an Eye for an eye. Do you or do you not support the principle? Furthermore, the way the system works right now makes the death penalty a lot more expensive than if you were to abolish it. In a lot of cases it's actually cheaper to lock people up for life without parole.[/QUOTE] No that is what I support. I was referring to the OP's use of "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind", which I don't agree is true, I explained why earlier. Apologies for the mistake. And on the issue of figures, there is no empirical evidence (just approximations) so we can't take anything as fact. And again, even if it were true, we don't and shouldn't weight justice in monetary value. Edit To clarify, I support equality of outcomes, so in a way you could liken that to eye for an eye, but that suggests that the act that follows a wrongdoing is retributive. I don't campaign for that, I'm just coming at the argument looking for equality from a judicial system. I don't aim for it to deterr (as it doesn't empirically) or act as a retributive punishment. Only to equalise outcomes. So, in short, yes I support eye for an eye, but not with a retributive standpoint.

[QUOTE=Benf199105;37095932]You can escape from prison. Be released, or continue to kill on the inside.[/QUOTE] Escape is incredibly rare. [url]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2001/02/how_often_do_prisoners_escape.html[/url] About 1%-2% of prisoners are escapees, that may seem bad but as the article states a vast majority of them are people who just walk out of minimum security prisons, which wouldn't hold murderers. If we are arguing between death sentence and life imprisonment, than how is release relevant? As to murders within, that is more of a problem that has to do with the actual prison system rather than the people in it.

[QUOTE=Benf199105;37095993]No that is what I support. I was referring to the OP's use of "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind", which I don't agree is true, I explained why earlier. Apologies for the mistake. And on the issue of figures, there is no empirical evidence (just approximations) so we can't take anything as fact. And again, even if it were true, we don't and shouldn't weight justice in monetary value.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty[/url] These are the statistics I got so far. There is a certain process that the case has to undergo in order to conclude a death penalty, to make sure that the perpetrator isn't actually innocent. We're not weighing justice with money, prisons are efficient to keep criminals away from the outside world and you solve the issue of accidentally executing an innocent person. You can revert a prison sentence but you can't revert an execution.

[QUOTE=Valnar;37096081]Escape is incredibly rare. [url]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2001/02/how_often_do_prisoners_escape.html[/url] About 1%-2% of prisoners are escapees, that may seem bad but as the article states a vast majority of them are people who just walk out of minimum security prisons, which wouldn't hold murderers. If we are arguing between death sentence and life imprisonment, than how is release relevant? As to murders within, that is more of a problem that has to do with the actual prison system rather than the people in it.[/QUOTE] So that's 1-2%. So it is not 0%. Life imprisonment often comes with some ability for parole or release. If we are talking about ACTUAL life imprisonment then I simply refer back to my main point which is that a life in prison is still preferntial to no life at all. So it is moot. And murders within. Yes, they are both a problem, both the gang system and segregation and racism are all problems in prisons, but putting a bunch of murderers, rapists, child abusers and thieves together will never end well, so it is also to do with the people inside aswell as the system of incarceration. [QUOTE=DeEz;37096111][url]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty[/url] These are the statistics I got so far. There is a certain process that the case has to undergo in order to conclude a death penalty, to make sure that the perpetrator isn't actually innocent. We're not weighing justice with money, prisons are efficient to keep criminals away from the outside world and you solve the issue of accidentally executing an innocent person. You can revert a prison sentence but you can't revert an execution.[/QUOTE] Again, I answered these issues last page. By alluding to a "more efficient" or "more cost effective" way of dealing with crime you are monetising it, and moving justice into a completely different area of thought, away from morality and into economics. I have nothing else to say on the cost effectiveness of the death penalty vs prisons, because my line of argument gives monetary costs no weight, just as the Justice system shouldn't. Prisons are less efficient than execution. If you get the right man and execute him, there is 0% chance of reoffending or further crime. Incarcerate him and he could be released, re-offend, escape (granted a small chance) and so on. So if anything, the only thing prisons are good at is being cost effective, but you still run a small chance of escape, or a higher risk of re-offending / further crimes in prison. Granted it may only be a 1-10% chance of anything happening, but anything is bigger than 0%. And on the issue of incorrect execution, that is unfortunate, and I have no real answer for that, other than to stop people murdering eachother. More people are murdered everyday than those that have been wrongly executed I'd wager quite confidently.

[QUOTE=Benf199105;37096125]So that's 1-2%. So it is not 0%. Life imprisonment often comes with some ability for parole or release. If we are talking about ACTUAL life imprisonment then I simply refer back to my main point which is that a life in prison is still preferntial to no life at all. So it is moot. And murders within. Yes, they are both a problem, both the gang system and segregation and racism are all problems in prisons, but putting a bunch of murderers, rapists, child abusers and thieves together will never end well, so it is also to do with the people inside aswell as the system of incarceration.[/QUOTE] Did you actually read anything about that 1-2% I said? The vast majority of that 1-2% group of people are walk outs from minimal supervision facilities, and even then most of those walk outs and all escapees are recovered.

[QUOTE=Valnar;37096174]Did you actually read anything about that 1-2% I said? The vast majority of that 1-2% group of people are walk outs from minimal supervision facilities, and even then most of those walk outs and all escapees are recovered.[/QUOTE] So are you saying it is impossible to escape from a prison. Or to be paroled and re-offend? The facts speak for themselves. 0% of those executed re-offend <0% of people who are imprisoned reoffend.

[QUOTE=Benf199105;37096191]So are you saying it is impossible to escape from a prison. Or to be paroled and re-offend?[/QUOTE] I'm saying that in the context of our argument, escapees don't hold much relevancy because the rate of criminals in high security facilities escaping is extremely low.

[QUOTE=Valnar;37096220]I'm saying that in the context of our argument, escapees don't hold much relevancy because the rate of criminals in high security facilities escaping is extremely low.[/QUOTE] But importantly, it isn't 0% is it? I don't want to argue this point as I feel it doesn't hold any real sway in the argument. But I'm committed to my point.

[QUOTE=Benf199105;37095993]... I'm just coming at the argument looking for equality from a judicial system.[/QUOTE] Equality has absolutely no place in criminal justice. The whole point of the judicial system is to deter crime and control society as a whole, and in more hopeless cases (such as murder), keep an individual from continuing to harm a community. [QUOTE]I don't aim for it to deterr (as it doesn't empirically) or act as a retributive punishment[/QUOTE] I don't have any numbers on this so I can't say for sure, but I do agree that it doesn't deter crime very well, obviously not fully. [QUOTE]Only to equalise outcomes. So, in short, yes I support eye for an eye, but not with a retributive standpoint.[/QUOTE] Whether it is for a retributional reason or not, the Eye for an eye principle is a retributional punishment which defies any logic or reasoning. Again, equality has no place in this system because it wasn't made up with equality between the victim and perpetrator in mind.

[QUOTE=Benf199105;37096226]But importantly, it isn't 0% is it? I don't want to argue this point as I feel it doesn't hold any real sway in the argument. But I'm committed to my point.[/QUOTE] How does it not hold any real sway on the arguement? You said escaping was one of the reasons why life imprisonment was less effective than the death penalty and I showed that it was insignificant. Also arguing that my point is moot because it isn't 0% is stupid, we don't live in a utopia.

[QUOTE=DeEz;37096267]Equality has absolutely no place in criminal justice. The whole point of the judicial system is to deter crime and control society as a whole, and in more hopeless cases (such as murder), keep an individual from continuing to harm a community. I don't have any numbers on this so I can't say for sure, but I do agree that it doesn't deter crime very well, obviously not fully. Whether it is for a retributional reason or not, the Eye for an eye principle is a retributional punishment which defies any logic or reasoning. Again, equality has no place in this system because it wasn't made up with equality between the victim and perpetrator in mind.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, but Justice is exactly about equality. We want justice (in a retirbutionist standpoint) when we have been wronged, or we want justice to apply equally to all. Like it is unjust to offer white people rights and not black people. Justice and Equality are almost synonymous. We clamour for justice because we know that any of our, or other's actions are judged fairly and equally by an impartial arbiter (the law or the judicial system). To say justice is nothing to do with equality is frankly wrong. The whole reason we have a judicial system is to protect people's basic rights, rights which we believe transcend everything else, and are applied equally and justly to all. To say the justice system is just there to lock wrong-doers up, or to control society is frankly grossly wrong and short sighted. Sorry. The deterrance figures I use are the USA. One of the biggest and most developed countries that use it, and still a huge murder rate. Could you please state why the eye for an eye principle "defies any logic"? As I simply do not follow. Maybe give me a premise that you use to conclude at that point. [QUOTE=Valnar;37096268]How does it not hold any real sway on the arguement? You said escaping was one of the reasons why life imprisonment was less effective than the death penalty and I showed that it was insignificant. Also arguing that my point is moot because it isn't 0% is stupid, we don't live in a utopia.[/QUOTE] I'm saying, I don't want to nitpick over the very small numbers, but if you wish to, I still conclude that execution is more effective at preventing further crime than prison. You didn't show anything was insignificant. Prison is less effective at stopping reoffending than execution that is an indelible fact. No one is discussing Utopia, but we can reach a 0% rate of reoffending through execution and not prison. That's the only fact I'm trying to state.

[QUOTE=DeEz;37095788]The Eye for an eye principle is irrational, why do you bring it up? The reason the death penalty exists is to keep a community safe, not because of retribution.[/QUOTE] Funny you say that, because not only is life imprisonment just as effective, but in states with abolished death penalties tend to be safer. [editline]5th August 2012[/editline] source: [url]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates[/url]

[QUOTE=Clementine;37096445]Funny you say that, because not only is life imprisonment just as effective, but in states with abolished death penalties tend to be safer. [editline]5th August 2012[/editline] source: [url]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates[/url][/QUOTE] Agreed here, the death penalty has proven consistently through empirical evidence to be a poor deterrent. Hence why I don't argue that way at all.