…and this is a 
It's a bloody-minded and barbarous practice, that's why
Category: Politics
Posted on: August 24, 2006 12:30 PM, by PZ Myers
Shelley asks what we think of the death penalty…that's an easy one to answer. I am absolutely against it; I think it brutalizes the culture, puts untoward power in the hands of government, and since I have little trust in the reliability of the court system, allows irreversible and tragic errors. I don't have to go on about it, though: just read Wilkins. I've decided to let him think for me this month.
One other thing I'd add, though: the death penalty isn't even an effective deterrent. For it to work, you have to assume that death penalty offenses are committed in a rational state of mind, and further, that there are no rational grounds for assuming one will be able to get away with it. Neither condition is true.
Comments
Actually, I have read (albeit at second hand) that there is some evidence that it is worse than that. Namely, that the death penalty is an antideterrent, i.e. the death penalty makes the relevant offences more likely.
Posted by: Keith Douglas | August 24, 2006 12:33 PM
The real problem with the death penalty is ...
What do you do WHEN (and it will be when ) you get it wrong, and execute the wrong person?
That is to me, the only argument against it, but, if you'll pardon the pun, it is a killer objection.
There is no way around it.
Posted by: G. Tingey | August 24, 2006 12:43 PM
Even if it had some detterent effect that mere fact that the death penalty is irreversible makes it unacceptable in my view. I've seen folks who think that the possibility of executing innocents is something that must be accepted for the greater good, but I would imagine their tune would change if someone they knew was wrongly executed.
Posted by: tim gueguen | August 24, 2006 12:44 PM
I think, it is the matter of value of human life. If you think that human life has a value only when it can serve as a proof of fornication, you are likely to fall in love with the idea of killing all who "deserve" it, regardles whether, or what effects it is going to have on the rest of the society. If you consider other people's lives having a value per se, you will se it as an abomination.
Posted by: T_U_T | August 24, 2006 12:44 PM
So what do we do with people who cannot be rehabilitated? One of the problems of America's prison system is that there is almost no attempt to rehabilitate offenders. That is what prisons were originally for.
Life in prison with no parole is just a death sentence, though slower. If society deems that person to have no value to society, what's the point of keeping them around? You might as well just drop them off on a deserted island in the middle of the Pacific. In prison they can still cause more trouble.
I personally am not crazy about the death penalty, since I think executing an innocent person is too big of a risk. However, what's the solution to people who have no business in a healthy society? If they cannot be, or will not be rehabilitated...what's the point of keeping them anywhere?
Posted by: cephyn | August 24, 2006 12:47 PM
In some of these cases, the perpetrator risks a much more immediate death in the process of committing the crime; one example would be by exchanging gunfire with the police. If the death penalty is indeed an "antideterrent", it might be just a prolonged form of what's commonly called "suicide by cop".
The death penalty is revenge, pure and simple -- applied in an inconsistent manner and sometimes with considerable uncertainty over either the identity of its target or the role of that person in the crime.
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut | August 24, 2006 12:49 PM
IMHO, one of the strongest arguments against the death penalty is the blood-thirsty attitude of too many of its proponents (to know what I mean, just listen to the things said by certain people the next time someone notorious is being executed). While an abstract argument can be made that capital punishment is fitting justice for murder, for these people justice has nothing to do with it: it's all about rage and revenge -- ie. the same forces that cause many murders in the first place.
When punishing the criminals means that you so visibly sink to their level, you have to know there's something wrong.
Posted by: Steve Watson | August 24, 2006 12:50 PM
Keith Douglas is right. A side effect of the death penalty is that the whole process of killing or being killed may enforce the image of a "contest -- an exciting highest-stakes gamble enacting in real life the games of children and the fantasies of television, with the possibility of one's own violent death adding zest to the challenge (as it apparently does for some race drivers, mountain climbers or professional daredevils).
Posted by: DV8 2XL | August 24, 2006 12:55 PM
It serves no good purpose, in any way. In addtion to PZ's comments, I would add:
It ends up being a sop to bloodthirsty (and misguided) voters
It does nothing in terms of catharsis for the criminal's victims (a commonly cited, "compassionate" reason for its use)
It does nothing for the criminal who may be guilty yet has a desire to provide some type of compensation (granted, the opportunities are few) for his crimes.
Finally and perhaps most simply, it smacks too much of the Vengeance Ethic.
Posted by: hoody | August 24, 2006 12:56 PM
I'd be against for most cases. The only reason I'd be for it is similar to what cephyn said. I would never execute someone who has just been convicted of one or two crimes. For me, it would take committing many violent crimes over a period of time, many seperate convictions, and negligible chance of rehabilitation. Then you might as well get rid of them to save money. The plus side of this is that you can't execute an innocent because the guy has done so many things that even if you were wrong about one of them, he's still done so many more anyway.
Posted by: King Aardvark | August 24, 2006 1:00 PM
The whole, untreatable-pschyopaths-not-being-mentally-competent-therefore-not-being-eligible thing just gets rid of the only argument I would even give air-time to.
Posted by: Linz | August 24, 2006 1:02 PM
And, since death sentences are automatically appealed (in order to minimize the chance of executing an innocent person) it ends up costing the state more money than to simply keep them in prison with no possibility for parole.
Re: the purpose of prison. The primary purpose of prison is to protect society from the depredations of criminals. The secondary purpose of prison is a matter of opinion. This falls into two camps: one is to rehabilitate prisoners, the other is to punish them. Personally, I think rehabilitation is the way to go, but I do think that a lot of people are so messed up/sociopathic/whatever, that it ain't gonna work on them.
But that's a whole 'nother discussion.
Posted by: dAVE | August 24, 2006 1:03 PM
I personally advocate the "donation" of criminals to medial research. It would completely remove our reliance upon animal testing and at the same time, would yield more accurate results. Clinical testing would become a much more affordable affair, since the "donations" would have no legal rights, thus reducing the liabilities for the pharmcos. This reduced cost with the added benefit of human testing results would lead to an ideal situation where fewer lawsuits are pressed against pharmcos, and pharmcos would no longer have to pursue only the most profitable of ventures.
Y'know. Take from society, give back to society.
Posted by: Zed | August 24, 2006 1:03 PM
I'd imagine that anyone who is against the death penalty for ethical reasons is probably going to be against using prisoners for unconsented medical research.
As for death sentences costing more than life sentences, well that's an inefficiency in the legal system. Make a conviction 100% accurate and it's no longer an argument. The question returns to the issue of what to do with a person that has been deemed a cancer upon society.
Posted by: cephyn | August 24, 2006 1:07 PM
What about chain-gangs (pref w/out the classic ball and chain!)....enforced community service of some kind that is actually a service to the community! Why can't these people plant trees and dig roads for us?
Posted by: Linz | August 24, 2006 1:07 PM
King Aardvark
For me, it would take committing many violent crimes over a period of time, many seperate convictions, and negligible chance of rehabilitation. Then you might as well get rid of them to save money.
Cephyn
However, what's the solution to people who have no business in a healthy society? If they cannot be, or will not be rehabilitated...what's the point of keeping them anywhere?
Geebus, I guess you do have to beat some people over the head until they "get it."
The issue is: murdering people for economic reasons is wrong. It's so wrong, in fact, that we put people in prison for life for engaging in such practices privately (when we catch them).
Get it?
Posted by: Great White Wonder | August 24, 2006 1:09 PM
Even if I didn't have principled reasons for opposing the death penalty (though I do), I would be solidly against it on purely pragmatic grounds. As a forensic scientist, I'm just too acutely aware of the fallibility of the justice system.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 24, 2006 1:09 PM
I'd be very interested in how many people who are anti-death penalty have had to deal with murdered loved ones directly. I'm not casting stones, I'm honestly curious. I for one support the death penalty. My cousin, his wife, and their unborn child were murdered by a shotgun-wielding criminal that was acting under the influence. He was committed to a mental health facility, and about 10 years later, was released. It may be a bloody-minded vengeance thing, but I wanted to see him die. I'd be curious to see how many people who are against the death penalty would change their minds if their loved ones were murdered.
Posted by: Josh | August 24, 2006 1:11 PM
So just exactly how do you guarantee 100% accuracy?
Posted by: RavenT | August 24, 2006 1:11 PM
I personally advocate the "donation" of criminals to medial research.
Why not entertainment? We could make criminals perform all sorts of wacky stunts at the point of a tazer.
Such stunts would bring joy and healing into the hearts of, e.g., small children suffering from leukemia.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | August 24, 2006 1:11 PM
Linz while chain gangs may work for people with finite sentences, what incentive is there for a person with an infinite sentence to work? It won't cut time off. It wont give any useable or marketable skills when they get out. What's to stop them from just refusing to work? What are you going to do, torture them until they work? Forced labor is not a death penalty replacement. The prisoners would just sit down and do nothing. Would you rather be in a forced labor camp for the rest of your life, being reduced to a human automaton, or would you just rather be dead? If you want to live so that you have the hope of escape, how bitter would you be? Would you commit crimes again?
Posted by: cephyn | August 24, 2006 1:12 PM
I'm in favor of the death penalty for serial killers (or more precisely, people convicted of murder one on more than one occasion), and serial killers only. Because, whether or not it works as a deterrent, there are still no repeat offenders.
Posted by: Kleyau | August 24, 2006 1:13 PM
Josh
It may be a bloody-minded vengeance thing, but I wanted to see him die.
Then by all means go find him and strangle him with your bare hands. Catch him at night somewhere, when nobody is around. Have a flashlight handy so you can see his eyeballs popping out and don't forget to spit in his face as you squeeze the life out of him.
Don't forget to wear gloves, though.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | August 24, 2006 1:13 PM
Josh, that is vengeance not justice and I think one of the purposes of the justice system should be to seperate the criminals from the victims so that justice not vengeance is served. Vigilanti-ism is not a safe way to go. What happens when people get it wrong...you get witch hunts and retribution killings of innocent people.
Btw, I totally don't think that what that guy got was justice.
Posted by: Linz | August 24, 2006 1:14 PM
Raven, I agree, we don't have 100% accuracy. That's why I'm against the death penalty.
Great White Wonder,
Is it any more humane to keep a person locked up forever with no hope? Like a caged animal? Really?
Posted by: cephyn | August 24, 2006 1:14 PM
I personally am not crazy about the death penalty, since I think executing an innocent person is too big of a risk. However, what's the solution to people who have no business in a healthy society? If they cannot be, or will not be rehabilitated...what's the point of keeping them anywhere?
That's a separate issue. The fact that America hasn't been able to figure out a way to make rehabilitation work certainly can't stand as an argument for simply killing them instead. I agree that thousands of people in prison cannot be rehabilitated (or at least, we'll never figure out how to do so), nor would there ever be public support for releasing the kind of people you see on death row anyway (I was just reminded of Clockwork Orange), but the inconvenience and expense of housing such people is not sufficient reason to justify executing them. I think it's society's duty to house them, regrettably.
Posted by: George Cauldron![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 24, 2006 1:16 PM
Because, whether or not it works as a deterrent, there are still no repeat offenders.
No repeat offenders either if you are kept in a jail cell and handcuffed whenever you are outside of it.
Any non-repetitive arguments for state-sanctioned murder?
Posted by: Great White Wonder | August 24, 2006 1:17 PM
Great White Wonder,
Is it any more humane to keep a person locked up forever with no hope? Like a caged animal? Really?
Hope for what?
We're all trapped here on earth. A lot of us are stuck in small towns with nothing to do except read, watch TV, or inhale paint. At least you know where your next meal is coming from in prison.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | August 24, 2006 1:19 PM
Great White Wonder, are you for torture? Isn't a life sentence with no hope of parole just long drawn-out torture for a person? If it isn't, it's got to be pretty close. Sure, he's not a repeat offender....but is that really the moral high ground here? Look highly on those who don't kill but imprison forever?
Posted by: cephyn | August 24, 2006 1:19 PM
Josh, I know that I would be very, very tempted to give in to the thirst for blood vengeance. I don't know whether I'd be able to resist it; it's a natural, understandable, and powerful impulse.
However: societies don't- can't possibly- exist to gratify every desire of every one of their members, even ones far less problematic than that one. So that very understandable emotion nevertheless should be given little or no weight in this discussion. Not, at any rate, unless accompanied by a serious argument that tries to show why abetting that desire for vengeance in such cases is both morally permisssible and a social good.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 24, 2006 1:20 PM
The question returns to the issue of what to do with a person that has been deemed a cancer upon society.
...donate them to cancer research, naturally.
Besides, the donation of criminals to medical research places the cost of housing/maintaining criminals completely in corporate hands. The burden on the taxpayer is reduced, and the benefit is that of arriving at a cure for cancer decades earlier.
Posted by: Zed | August 24, 2006 1:21 PM
Isn't a life sentence with no hope of parole just long drawn-out torture for a person?
Go to San Quentin and ask some of the prisoners there if any of them want to be killed today because it's so bad living there.
Let me know what you find out.
Frankly, if any of them do want to kill themselves, I don't have a problem with that. People should be allowed to kill themselves whenever they want, in my opinion. I see that as a fundamental human right.
Great White Wonder, are you for torture?
Fuck you, asshole.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | August 24, 2006 1:22 PM
Zed
The burden on the taxpayer is reduced, and the benefit is that of arriving at a cure for cancer decades earlier.
Maybe I should raise some criminals and donate them to prison.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | August 24, 2006 1:23 PM
My cousin, his wife, and their unborn child were murdered by a shotgun-wielding criminal that was acting under the influence. He was committed to a mental health facility, and about 10 years later, was released. It may be a bloody-minded vengeance thing, but I wanted to see him die. I'd be curious to see how many people who are against the death penalty would change their minds if their loved ones were murdered.
While I'm very sorry at your loss, and appalled that this man was EVER released, I have to say, I think it's a terrible idea for people who are most directly impacted by such crimes to set government policy on punishment. Bluntly put, it's too important a decision for people who are this emotionally vested in the decision. In other words, it's a bad idea to hand over policy to people who want revenge.
If what happened to you happened to me, I'd very likely want the guy dead, too. But that doesn't mean I should be able to tell the state to kill him. But it's inexcusable that the state should ever have let that man out.
Posted by: George Cauldron![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 24, 2006 1:25 PM
Zed-
That was the rationale for Nazi medical experiments. Seriously. They deemed a group of people unneccessary for a healthy society. (Their reasons for doing this were deplorable.) They then either used those people as human test subjects for medical research and the greater good, or killed them. Is that what we wish to aspire to?
Again, in case there comes any confusion here: I am against the death penalty because you cannot be 100% sure the person is guilty. I also believe that prisons should be more about rehabilitation than for punishment.
The moral quandry is what to do with those who cannot be rehabilitated? Torture them by keeping them in prison forever? Torture them in medical experiments? Or simply kill them?
I don't know.
Posted by: cephyn | August 24, 2006 1:25 PM
"Fuck you, asshole."
Wow, GWW. I could have said the same thing in your response to me, but I chose to be civil. Aside from your belligerent jack-assery, it's been a pretty civil discussion for such an emotional topic.
Posted by: Josh | August 24, 2006 1:26 PM
"Great White Wonder, are you for torture?
Fuck you, asshole."
Touch a nerve did I?
Posted by: cephyn | August 24, 2006 1:27 PM
cephyn
The moral quandry is what to do with those who cannot be rehabilitated? Torture them by keeping them in prison forever? Torture them in medical experiments? Or simply kill them?
I don't know.
What about mentally ill people who aren't committing crimes and who can't be rehabilitated? What's the difference between a mentally ill person who needs to be kept under constant surveillance night and day and a criminal from the angle of "life without hope is torture"?
Posted by: Great White Wonder | August 24, 2006 1:27 PM
Great White:
There's a difference between executing criminals who would kill you in an instant, who you really can't justify spending good money on to house and guard, and killing innocents because they aren't economically beneficial.
Besides, I'm against death penalties in general, but was making a case for an extreme situation where I could see some sense in it. If funds were plentiful (hint: the US national debt is around $8.5 trillion) I'd say look after them for life. I will agree with PZ that it certainly brutalizes the culture, and I would avoid it for that reason.
I'll commend you for your strong ethical stance re: no killing ever. It's just that, when most people argue against the death penalty, the main point is the possibility of killing innocents, not the problem with killing criminals, too.
Honest question: what other alternatives are there for the long term handling of chronically dangerous and mallicious criminals? Anyone have any good ideas?
Posted by: King Aardvark | August 24, 2006 1:28 PM
Touch a nerve did I?
No, you just asked a genuinely asinine question and I called you on it. No big deal.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | August 24, 2006 1:29 PM
Wait, I got it....
We've all heard of bio-fuels right?
Posted by: Alex | August 24, 2006 1:29 PM
The fact that America hasn't been able to figure out a way to make rehabilitation work certainly can't stand as an argument for simply killing them instead.
That's not even an arugment. There are tons of programs that act work towords rehabilitation. And a lot that work to a signifigant degree. The just cost money. And it's awfully hard to justify to your average "small government" jingoist moron that rehabilitating prisoners rather than just caging them is actually good fiscal policy.
In my weaker moments I have no problem justifying the death penalty in certain cases... but it's not a rational response.. it's an emotional one.
But I'm definately against the death penalty because the crazy justice system we have has consistantly gotten it wrong over and over again.
Posted by: Ben | August 24, 2006 1:30 PM
Re: whether life in jail is more humane than the death penalty.
I have occasionally toyed with the idea that, for the really nasty cases (the ones you don't ever want out on the street again, and even among the prison population are likely to be a problem) we should put them in solitary for life -- with the proviso that the prisoner will be given a suicide pill on request. Let them make their own choice.
I don't claim it's a very good idea.
Posted by: Steve Watson | August 24, 2006 1:32 PM
Wow, GWW. I could have said the same thing in your response to me
Be my guest. But aren't you the one that said you wanted to see somebody die?
I never indicated in any way that I supported torture. That is why the question to me was fucking obnoxious.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | August 24, 2006 1:32 PM
What about mentally ill people who aren't committing crimes and who can't be rehabilitated? What's the difference between a mentally ill person who needs to be kept under constant surveillance night and day and a criminal from the angle of "life without hope is torture"?
If they aren't committing crimes, they are not a danger to society. Society would not need to be protected from them by their deaths. Compassion for someone who is ill and needs help is a good thing. It's a huge difference. For them the issue is not about hope. They want to contribute. They want to be a part of society.
A violent criminal does not. They have actively moved against their society. They have taken all hope, life, away from someone else.
Posted by: cephyn | August 24, 2006 1:33 PM
Cephyn
If they aren't committing crimes, they are not a danger to society.
Then why do we "torture" them, cephyn?
Next.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | August 24, 2006 1:34 PM
Is it any more humane to keep a person locked up forever with no hope? Like a caged animal? Really?
This is wildly naive. You're implying that of course it's crueler to keep a man in a cage for 50 years than it is to kill him. While this may seem logical if you don't think about it too hard, it doesn't make sense. I daresay it's up to the criminal as to whether lifelong incarceration is worse than death. I'm sure many criminals would *prefer* staying alive to being executed. (And of course, others wouldn't.) This would explain why so many criminals appeal their death penalty decisions for so many years.
It's absurd for the state to execute a man on the one hand, but on the other to say "oh, we're only doing what's least CRUEL to you!"
Posted by: George Cauldron![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 24, 2006 1:35 PM
Josh,
Asking GWW "Are you for torture?" is at least as insulting as the statement "Fuck you, asshole." Don't pretend that it isn't.
GWW basically summed it up. All arguments here for the death penalty are repetitive and flawed at the most basic level. Of course victims shouldn't dictate policies of justice, just like corporations shouldn't decide what tax breaks they get either. And ya, go ask an inmate if he would rather be dead. Behaving in a civilized manner can be expensive and it is our responsibility to support that. Americans try to think like corporations and end up acting deplorably (sp?).
Posted by: Vitis | August 24, 2006 1:37 PM
People are more likely to attribute guilt to someone accused of a heinous crime. This is shown by the resistance that you hear on talk shows to people accused of terrorism or crimes against children to having any real defense representation. Even if they are found not guilty, they will be seen with suspicion ever more. Even if the real killer is found!
That said, I am more horrified by life in prison than by the death penalty. Why not bury someone alive and let them breathe through tubes? I have heard prison described in similar terms. And... assuming an innocent person, and the error is never found (most likely scenario) how is that better than execution?
Posted by: decrepitoldfool | August 24, 2006 1:38 PM
Sorry cephyn said that.
Posted by: Vitis | August 24, 2006 1:38 PM
Great White Hope,
death is 100% effective, while keeping people in prison isn't. There are many gangs ran by inmates with life sentences, but I'm sure they don't kill anyone. Oh, and nice "Fuck you, asshole" response to another person. That was eloquent.
Also, are you in favor of defending our country, if another country attacks us? Are should we just let them take over? If you are favor of defensive wars, than you're in favor of killing over beliefs, not even life. Because our society is a set of beliefs. And, when a society successfully defends itself in a war, the loser society generally has a greater death toll than the winner. But, taking more life, and defending your beliefs is more important than taking the life of one person who is a serial killer?
Posted by: Kleyau | August 24, 2006 1:39 PM
GWW:
If they aren't committing crimes, they are not a danger to society.
Then why do we "torture" them, cephyn?
That's a rather glib analogy. You might well have said "Why do we torture babies by putting them in cribs?" The difference is whether cage is there to protect others or to protect themselves.
Posted by: King Aardvark | August 24, 2006 1:39 PM
"Be my guest. But aren't you the one that said you wanted to see somebody die?"
Yes. But at least I did it politely. And I would bet if someone came to your family's home and gunned them down, you'd have a similar desire. You can deny it all you want, but until it happens (and I hope it never does), you don't know.
That having been said, and leaving GWW's ranting aside, everyone that has said (politely, thank you) that society's laws shouldn't be based on emotion, etc, is probably right. I hadn't thought about it that way. It gives me something to think about. Justifiable rage is still rage, and generally shouldn't be acted upon.
Posted by: Josh | August 24, 2006 1:39 PM
"Be my guest. But aren't you the one that said you wanted to see somebody die?"
Yes. But at least I did it politely.
Funniest thing I've read all year!!! :)
Posted by: Great White Wonder | August 24, 2006 1:41 PM
GWW has gone off the deep end, clearly. Mentally ill people who aren't committing crimes and need supervision (as he stated in his example) are not imprisoned by the state or society. They are imprisoned by their own condition. If there was a "cure" or "fix" for them, to improve their quality of life, it would be administered. Someday, maybe there will be some way to improve their lives. That's hope.
As for criminals, the cure to be administered is rehabilitation. IF that doesn't work, what then? If you can't see the difference there GWW, sorry. But you're on your own with that.
George, yes, I am implying that. IF its up to the criminal then, we're on to Steve Watsons plan. Solitary confinement and an optional suicide pill. Given the lack of any other good options at this point, I guess that is the least cruel option.
Oh wait, you already nixed Least Cruel options. What would you like then? Most Cruel? Sorta Cruel? I don't understand that argument. Aren't we all trying to find the Least Cruel option? One so not cruel, its actually...Not Cruel?
Posted by: cephyn | August 24, 2006 1:43 PM
death is 100% effective, while keeping people in prison isn't. There are many gangs ran by inmates with life sentences, but I'm sure they don't kill anyone.
Then that's a failure of how prisons are run, not an argument for the death penalty.
Serial killers incarcerated for life cease to be serial killers. This is news?
Also, are you in favor of defending our country, if another country attacks us? Are should we just let them take over? If you are favor of defensive wars, than you're in favor of killing over beliefs, not even life.
Are you seriously saying that if one opposes the death penalty then one must oppose their country defending itself??? I certainly hope that's not what you're saying, since that's frigging ridiculous.
Posted by: George Cauldron![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 24, 2006 1:44 PM
When I was a teenager I had some friends that were killed by a psychopath (he is currently serving three consecutive life sentences). This severely tested but did not alter my opposition to the death penalty.
I think violent murderers should be given a small, measured amount of hope. Keep them in locked away forever, in order to protect future victims, but give them an opportunity to develop themselves intellectually and morally in that environment. If by doing so they can contribute in any way to the healing of their victims, that's great (although very unlikely). It's still worth trying for.
Posted by: qvatlanta | August 24, 2006 1:46 PM
cephyn,
Your arguement is so full of blatant contradictions and bizarre arbitrary distinctions that to say GWW has gone off the deep end is painfully ironic.
Pause and critically re-examine your arguement.
Posted by: Vitis | August 24, 2006 1:48 PM
Good grief, the goalposts are moving so fast and so far it must be the goalpost moving Olympics!
Also, are you in favor of defending our country, if another country attacks us? Are should we just let them take over?
Different topic.
That's a rather glib analogy. You might well have said "Why do we torture babies by putting them in cribs?"
No, there's nothing glib about it. Cephyn just put his foot in his mouth and now cephyn has it to chew it down and swallow or spit it out and recognize the contradiction.
Cephyn said that keeping people caged with no hope of rehabilitation is "torture". I asked him what he thought about mentally ill people (but it applies to many sick person) who can't be rehabilitated and who are bound to live a life in a very very very restricted setting. I asked cephyn to explain why is one "torture" and the other "not torture"? He didn't answer.
In Cephyn's place, I might just have shut up and leaft because there is no good answer. That is because his premise is fucked, as Cauldron already pointed out.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | August 24, 2006 1:48 PM
George, yes, I am implying that. IF its up to the criminal then, we're on to Steve Watsons plan. Solitary confinement and an optional suicide pill. Given the lack of any other good options at this point, I guess that is the least cruel option.
I'm not sure you caught my point. You're saying that lifetime incarceration is crueler than execution, and that policy should be based on that.
My reaction is that I don't see how you KNOW that incarceration is crueler than execution. For some criminals it *won't* be. Some criminals would prefer incarceration. So it's a bogus line of reasoning.
My impression is that convicts who want to kill themselves don't usually have too much trouble finding a way to do it.
Posted by: George Cauldron![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 24, 2006 1:49 PM
The penalty for committing the crime of attacking this country is death.
Now it's OK?
If the war is active, then its self defense. No problem. Clear and present danger and immediate threat. But that's not the death penalty. That's self defense in the face of lethal force and intent.
If the war is over, and/or its a POW in a zone of peace, what then?
1)They are a clear danger to our society.
2)Can they be rehabilitated?
3)If not...back to the same issue.
Posted by: cephyn | August 24, 2006 1:50 PM
I think we should take the same magic wand we wave to make the death penalty justifiable, and use it to magically eliminate all crime in the first place.
Frankly, I'm astonished at the number of people who think revenge is a justification for the death penalty. If you want revenge, take revenge. Kill the bastard and turn yourself in to the police. I'm guessing that in most states, if you kill the man who killed your family, and then freely confess the crime, you could plead down to 2nd degree homicide or 1st degree manslaughter. 20 years with early parole for good behavior. Piece of cake. And I think you'd get more satisfaction out of the revenge if you did it yourself.
I mean, I'm hardly a libertarian, but when it comes to revenge, I don't think the state has any business getting involved.
Posted by: HP | August 24, 2006 1:50 PM
George, please explain the difference between war and the death penalty.
My criteria for the death penalty is to executed serial killers.
My criteria for war, as justified for most people, is that in defense of your country. Now, what is a country? It is a group of people that follow certain laws and tend to share a relatively common culture. Why would you defend this country? To defend the laws and culture? To defend the people? Laws and culture are the beliefs of a society. You're killing others over beliefs. And how countries kill less of another country and win the war? So, you kill more of their people than they killed of yours. And, you killing because you have your beliefs, and they can't tell you what to do.
So, death penalty=kill one person who has killed more than one other person.
War=killing for your beliefs, and killing more people of another society than they killed in your society.
I'm in favor of both, but I don't see how someone in favor of defensive war can be against the death penalty.
Posted by: Kleyau | August 24, 2006 1:50 PM
George:
death is 100% effective, while keeping people in prison isn't. There are many gangs ran by inmates with life sentences, but I'm sure they don't kill anyone.
Then that's a failure of how prisons are run, not an argument for the death penalty.
That does seem to be one of the major problems here. It's the same thing with everyone being opposed to the death penalty for the reason that the court systems are so flawed; if the system is cleaned up, then we have more options to consider. Some people are arguing from a realistic perspective, others from an idealistic perspective.
For the lifetime solitary + suicide pill option: that seems a little to Pirates of the Caribbean to me.
For the medical experiments, we shouldn't stoop to forcing them to do it. We should just strongly encourage.
I think I'm still happy to live in Canada where we don't have the death penalty.
Posted by: King Aardvark | August 24, 2006 1:54 PM
Cephyn said that keeping people caged with no hope of rehabilitation is "torture". I asked him what he thought about mentally ill people (but it applies to many sick person) who can't be rehabilitated and who are bound to live a life in a very very very restricted setting. I asked cephyn to explain why is one "torture" and the other "not torture"? He didn't answer.
I did answer. Not my fault you didn't get it. Will you just lash out with profanity again? Is that what you do when frustrated?
Mentally ill people in your example are not imprisoned to protect society from them. What you are asking is not about death penalty, you're asking about euthanasia. And that's different. With the prisoner, society has deemed them beyond hope. They will always be a danger to society. With the ill person, they must make that decision themselves, or someone will have to make it for them - but they are not imprisoned in order to protect the rest of us.
Euthanasia != Death Penalty. My premise is not fucked, but thanks for trying.
Posted by: cephyn | August 24, 2006 1:55 PM
I'm in favor of both, but I don't see how someone in favor of defensive war can be against the death penalty.
Try this:
dude in prison isn't likely to kill anybody, so let's not kill him to save money.
army of dudes in other country are killing innocent people here so they can take over our country and institute the death penalty for having gay sex. so we do the only we can to prevent this atrocity which requires killing the dudes in the other country to make them stop killing us.
You can't see the difference? What the fuck?
Posted by: Great White Wonder | August 24, 2006 1:57 PM
There will always be repeat offenders. Just as the death penalty itself is applied imperfectly, the prison system can not guarantee life-without-parole prisoners will not gain freedom.
I used to support the death penalty. I still support the theory of the death penalty. What I did do was weigh the costs of a convicted murderer regaining freedom and killing again against the costs of executing an innocent man. It is my personal opinion that the latter makes the more indelible stain upon our social contract.
Any non-repetitive arguments for state-sanctioned murder?
Like both sides have any new horses to bring to the gate. Both sides have their stock phrases and arguments which are not likely to sway anyone with an existing opinion.
Posted by: Sean | August 24, 2006 1:57 PM
I did answer
You gave a non-answer. You replied with a non-sequitur. Please, don't make me pull down your pants and spank you in front of everybody.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | August 24, 2006 1:58 PM
***
For it to work, you have to assume that death penalty offenses are committed in a rational state of mind, and further, that there are no rational grounds for assuming one will be able to get away with it. Neither condition is true.
***
PZ
I agree with your general position on the death penalty. But I don't think this statement about deterrence has validity. A person doesn't need to be "rational" to be deterred. "Irrational" people can be deterred, as well. Even psychotic serial killers don't pick targets in the middle of the street during daylight (usually). They know that they might get caught, and they know that getting caught leads to bad things. Clearly, criminals of all kinds are deterred by potential penalties. The relevant question is *How much?* The additional deterrent value of the death penalty may be very small, at the margin...perhaps not large enough to justify the negative aspects of the punishment on society, such as the potential for an irreversible mistake.
The same goes for the likelihood of getting away with it. The fact that criminals aren't always prosecuted and punished simply implies that criminals discount the potential impact of punishments. Nobody would ever commit any crime (well, almost nobody) if they knew they would be caught and punished with certainty. There is nothing unique about the death penalty as a punishment in this respect.
Posted by: Jesse | August 24, 2006 1:59 PM
It should read " how many countries kill less."
I type good.
Cephyn, should we have gone into Afghanistan? They (or al-Qaida, anyway) attacked, but we weren't still being attacked. So there really wasn't any clear and present danger. Was that ok?
Anyways, I'm for defensive wars (but not Iraq, that was just retarded) including the war in Afghanistan. I'm also in favor of the death penalty, because they seem to follow similiar, if not identical lines of logic.
Posted by: Kleyau | August 24, 2006 1:59 PM
Like both sides have any new horses to bring to the gate. Both sides have their stock phrases and arguments which are not likely to sway anyone with an existing opinion.
Posted by: Sean
Not true. The death penalty in the US is going the way of the dodo. Slowly but surely.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | August 24, 2006 1:59 PM
George, please explain the difference between war and the death penalty.
If you can't see the difference, I doubt I could explain it to you.
I'm in favor of both, but I don't see how someone in favor of defensive war can be against the death penalty.
Sorry, but millions and millions of people in the west disagree with you. Good to keep in mind.
Posted by: George Cauldron![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 24, 2006 1:59 PM
"When I was a teenager I had some friends that were killed by a psychopath (he is currently serving three consecutive life sentences). This severely tested but did not alter my opposition to the death penalty."
You're a better person than I am.
Posted by: Josh | August 24, 2006 2:01 PM
I'm for defensive wars (but not Iraq, that was just retarded)
Not only was it retarded, it was not a defensive war. The US simply invaded Iraq because it fucking wanted to.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | August 24, 2006 2:01 PM
Like both sides have any new horses to bring to the gate. Both sides have their stock phrases and arguments which are not likely to sway anyone with an existing opinion.
I disagree. DNA analysis has revealed very starkly just how common it is in America for innocent people to be convicted of felonies. (The governor of Illinois imposed a moratorium on the death penalty for that exact reason.) My impression is that this realization has seriously eroded public support for the death penalty.
Posted by: George Cauldron![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 24, 2006 2:04 PM
GWW basically summed it up. All arguments here for the death penalty are repetitive and flawed at the most basic level.
Sarcasm on. Oh, you are right. They are all just repetitive and flawed at the most basic level. You win.
Oh wait, what if I say this...
All arguements here against the death penalty are repetive and flawed at the most basic level.
There. Now what? Call it a draw?
Posted by: Sean | August 24, 2006 2:07 PM
Wow. Talk about synchronicity. I read this paragraph (among many others) on the bus this morning:
"And as no-one could make sense of it, thoughts turned instead to retribution; the only way forward after such a senseless loss of precious human life was to ... er ... kill someone else."
Christopher Brookmyre, "Country of the Blind"
Posted by: The RIdger | August 24, 2006 2:07 PM
GWW:
I hate to say it, but your comments about pulling cephyn's pants down etc is getting awfully close to Lenny's comments about dick waving on a previous infamous post. I hope it doesn't get that way here.
I'll agree with you, certainly a defensive war is much more cut-and-dried justifiable than the death penalty in any circumstance.
Posted by: King Aardvark | August 24, 2006 2:08 PM
In states with the death penalty the muder rate is 5.1 per 100K, in states without the death penalty its 2.9 per 100k. Clearly its not a deterrant, but this will contiue to be an issue for a long time. In my state of Texas many people boast of how we lead the nation in the number of people put to death, but our murder rate is 6.1 per 100K. Personally, I have to admit I have flip-flopped on this issue a few times. When I see people like John Couey...I think he is a poster child for the death penalty, but the death penalty has never brought back a victim. Then again no person ever put to death has ever commited murder again.
Posted by: Digressive Steve | August 24, 2006 2:08 PM
Cephyn, should we have gone into Afghanistan? They (or al-Qaida, anyway) attacked, but we weren't still being attacked. So there really wasn't any clear and present danger. Was that ok?
Depends on how you see it. We wanted to go in to get those who attacked us. If we captured them alive, or were handed them, we probably would have imprisoned them, and then tried them. The penalty for a guilty verdict is what we're arguing about.
However, the rulers of Afghanistan not only refused to help or hand us the individuals who still posed a threat to our society (as it is their sworn oath to fight the US), they supported the views and actions of those criminals. So we i