snbl11225
Member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2010
- Messages
- 90
- Reaction score
- 26
- Location
- Oklahoma, USA
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Why didn't you have an option for those who oppose the death penalty. That, to me, skews your result.
Plato
Every argument except vengeance collapses under pressure. And of course the vengeance argument isn't an argument. It's an emotional reaction.
I clearly refuted your assertions in post #263 yet you voided answering... pretty telling.
I'm afraid I don't accept your 'consequence' argument, not at all. You are saying that the DP is not vengeance, but consequence of the action they have undertaken in taking another life. That might hold water were it not for the fact that the DP is an entirely arbitrary consequence, devised by politicians and therefore imperfect in its conception, as are indeed all punishments. There is no such thing as a 'natural' consequence unless we are discussing the laws of nature (gravity, relativity etc) and not the laws of man.
We (or rather those who have it) choose to make the DP the consequence of murder. Why they do so, well we are in the process of discussing that matter, are we not? You dismiss the idea that vengeance is involved, but in putting in its place 'consequence', you entirely miss the mark.
I oppose the death penalty based on the following reasons.
1. With the potential for wrongful convictions you can never assure that you are not convicting an innocent man. The recent results of DNA are just one example. Additionally, the established weakness of eye witness testimony has been demonstrated to be significant.The reality is that 130 people have been released from death row based on innocence from 1973. Between 1973-1999 there have been 3.1 released based on innocence per year and between 2000-2007 there have been 5 on innocence per yea. The possibility of executing an innocent person alone, in my opinion, justifies that capital punishment be repealed.
2. Contrary to popular opinion, the judicial system is not about truth but rather about winning. It is hoped that in an adversarial system truth will surface. Having worked in the criminal justice system throughout may working years, that is not always the case. Attorneys are concerned about putting a Win before there name rather than concentrate on the truth. Economics also comes into play. The better the attorney, the greater the opportunity of not receiving the death penalty. Ninety percent of all people on death row cannot afford an attorney.
I support it. Some people are of no further use to society, and it is counter-productive to house them with people we might have a chance of salvaging.
A fine argument if you scrap the humanity of man.
It might be about vengeance for many, just not for me and my reasoning. I am completely on the mark and just saying that I am replacing a word and missing it certainly doesn't hold any water. Whether or not the DP is arbitrary or not is absolutely irrelevant, as you say, all punishments are arbitrary. So if you are saying that my reasoning doesn't hit the mark, then no punishments hit the mark. I have no idea why you are bringing up natural consequences at all... but
No, it is not. Not everyone who has a child that is the victim of attempted murder kills the attacker. It is a decision, a fairly understandable emotional decision perhaps, but not inevitable and does not occur in even 50% of cases. THAT'S why I mentioned 'natural' consequences, which are utterly different to the example you gave.a natural consequence of trying to kill my child will be that I kill you. That is seen in the natural world the world over...
Well, I'm just not sure what your ethical argument is.Look, if you are not going to accept it and then challenge it, at least challenge the ethical aspects of the argument that I am utilizing and not introduce all this other irrelevant stuff about gravity when discussing the DP.
Past failures need to stop being used. Failures in the past in no way indicate that those convicted with DNA evidence now are innocent nor will they be proven innocent, so those convicted with DNA evidence now should be killed without question.
And that's the problem with a fascistic take on morality. Order is all, humanity, in all its imperfection, is merely something to be controlled. It's an easy argument to make when you are dealing with murderers. The problem is, as you've expressed many time when discussing an aspect of dissent within society, that you believe the iron fist is the right and the responsibility of rulers. Given the anti-democratic nature of fascist attitudes to governmental change, the de facto power of rulers is not always legitimate, hence often tyrannical.Judging by the kind of people we have on death row, it doesn't seem like the "humanity of man" is worth a hill of beans in the first place.
Unfortunately, what you might deem 'actively detrimental', others would call legitimate dissent or ethical disobedience.I don't ask for people to be useful; I only ask that they refrain from being actively detrimental to society.
And that's the problem with a fascistic take on morality. Order is all, humanity, in all its imperfection, is merely something to be controlled. It's an easy argument to make when you are dealing with murderers, the problem is, as you've expressed many time when discussing an aspect of dissent within society, that you believe the iron fist is the right and the responsibility of rulers. Given the anti-democratic nature of fascist attitudes to governmental change, the de facto power of rulers is not always legitimate, hence often tyrannical.
Unfortunately, what you might deem 'actively detrimental', others would call legitimate dissent or ethical disobedience.
Past failures need to stop being used. Failures in the past in no way indicate that those convicted with DNA evidence now are innocent nor will they be proven innocent, so those convicted with DNA evidence now should be killed without question.
Then the entire 'consequence' argument needs to be dropped. We are discussing whether capital punishment SHOULD be used. Merely saying it is a consequence of a criminal action is describing the current state of affairs, not explaining it. In those circumstances, I will agree with you. The Death Penalty IS the current consequence of committing certain criminal acts in certain states. That doesn't justify it, merely describes it. So what IS your justification?
No, it is not. Not everyone who has a child that is the victim of attempted murder kills the attacker. It is a decision, a fairly understandable emotional decision perhaps, but not inevitable and does not occur in even 50% of cases. THAT'S why I mentioned 'natural' consequences, which are utterly different to the example you gave.
Well, I'm just not sure what your ethical argument is.
I did not introduce irrelevant stuff, merely pointed out the fallacy inherent in using a word like 'consequence' when it has several different meanings. 'Natural' consequences are entirely different to human reactions to events, which are not inevitable.
So far, the only pro-DP argument that seems to make any ethical sense is the one Catz uses about incapacitating dangerous criminals from harming others. I would argue that incarceration can do that, but I recognise that people can hold her position in all good conscience.
DNA is not as sure evidence as you appear to believe
Okay, again arbitrary. Deontological arguments are necessarily subjective. It's your judgement that decides what these crimes merit. Do I assume that you apply US judicial norms for applying the DP? That these are the ones with which you agree and, for want of argument, that you may not deem the Chinese norms as equally valid?That these crimes merit that a person forfeit their right to life. They have chosen to be removed by their actions and any positive future use that they may have is irrelevant.
If just about any parent is standing there while some person tries to kill their child, they will try to kill the perpatrator in order to stop them. I don't know what kind of parents you know... I doubt any parent would waste a nano-second in thinking "how can I stop this guy from killing my child in a manner that will not kill this murdering savage, hmmm?"
Deontological Ethics...
And that's the problem with a fascistic take on morality. Order is all, humanity, in all its imperfection, is merely something to be controlled. It's an easy argument to make when you are dealing with murderers. The problem is, as you've expressed many time when discussing an aspect of dissent within society, that you believe the iron fist is the right and the responsibility of rulers. Given the anti-democratic nature of fascist attitudes to governmental change, the de facto power of rulers is not always legitimate, hence often tyrannical.
Unfortunately, what you might deem 'actively detrimental', others would call legitimate dissent or ethical disobedience.
Do I assume that you apply US judicial norms for applying the DP? That these are the ones with which you agree and, for want of argument, that you may not deem the Chinese norms as equally valid?
Of course I do. The right of the individual to approve or disapprove of their government, and act to change or maintain it, is democracy.Do you support the right of the individual-- each and every individual-- to decide for themselves the legitimacy of their government?
If you have a nation, governed by consent, under an agreed constitution and with proper mechanisms in place for governmental accountability and removal, then the idea of overthrowing a government, and by that I assume you mean the violent take-over, becomes very much a minority preserve. If we are discussing merely the violent overthrow of a government, then it takes as big a percentage of the population to do so as can be militarily successful.If not, what percentage of the people has to hold that the government is illegitimate before they have the right to overthrow it? Should a government simply fold when it encounters organized opposition to their rule?
There are many strategies, as we can see from different examples around the world. The constant to me appears to be the equation that the greater the legitimacy of a government, the less civil unrest you are likely to need to quell.And if your answer to any of these questions is "yes", then how do you propose that a government-- any government, legitimate or otherwise-- maintain order in the face of civil unrest?
Well, I think I've dealt with this already. Legitimacy resides in the individual and collective hearts of the people, not in their acquiescence to coercion. That a tyrant is able to prevent dissent from becoming overt does not mean they have legitimacy. What you're saying is that because we cannot measure legitimacy, we might as well pretend that a cowed and uncomplaining populace is an acceptable alternative indicator of it.The iron fist of the ruler, the de facto power of the government, are always legitimate because it is the power itself that grants them legitimacy. Illegitimate governments are incapable of ruling, so any government that has the capacity to maintain its authority over the people is legitimate by default. You may accuse me of condoning tyranny in this argument, and you may be correct, but there is no alternative by which to measure the legitimacy of a government objectively, and leaving it up to the subjective attitudes of the mob is to promote lawlessness and anarchy.
Only if your government lacked legitimacy in the hearts and minds of the people. It is quite possible for people to demonstrate and engage in civil disobedience on a particular issues, or set of issues, while not questioning the legitimacy of the government to remain the government. I marched and campaigned against Tony Bliar and his Iraqi War plans without once questioning his legitimacy as the elected leader of the British government. The moral imperative was to protest that issue, not his entire claim to authority.Yes. And those others would then be under the moral imperative to attempt to overthrow my government.
Okay, just checking. It's just that there are many different sets of issues and assumptions depending on which system you are discussing. This thread is about the DP generally, not about the DP purely as it applies to the US. The US is not my chief concern. I've been discussing the principles relating to the DP.American justice is sufficient for Americans, while Chinese justice is better suited to the Chinese. I would no more tell them how to run their country than I would suffer them to tell us how to run ours, except to offer and/or receive advice offered under the auspices of friendship. My own personal judicial norms are only valid when applied to people under my own authority; the best I can hope for is to influence the norms of my country to move more in my direction.
Okay, again arbitrary. Deontological arguments are necessarily subjective. It's your judgement that decides what these crimes merit. Do I assume that you apply US judicial norms for applying the DP? That these are the ones with which you agree and, for want of argument, that you may not deem the Chinese norms as equally valid?
Yes, I know what they are and the subjectivity inherent in their application
Okay, you've just applied a new dynamic to this argument. Now you are saying that a justification for applying lethal force against an aggressor to your child is the fact that you may be able to prevent that aggressor from harming your child if you take lethal action.
That may be true, although you are shifting the goalposts, and that in itself is an admission of the weakness of your position.
I do not support it. It's expensive and there are better alternatives to death as punishment.
A bullet in not expensive... and what better alternative is there when dealing with someone who rapes, murders and then butchers a body?
I clearly refuted your assertions in post #263 yet you voided answering... pretty telling.
I support capital punishment, but only for truly heinous crimes that demonstrate complete and incurable disregard for human life. (Obviously, that's not the actual standard I would push for, but it's the best I can do at the moment).
For example: Hitler would be a good candidate for the death penalty. Somebody who raped and murdered seven children over the course of a decade would probably be another.
But the government should be better than "an eye for an eye." It shouldn't punish in the same way the offender offended.
I also think, because of the recent DNA exonerations, there should be an even higher standard of proof in order for someone to get death. Like, there needs to be some kind of direct, conclusive evidence.