March 02, 2005

• I'm encouraged by this decision. Hopefully this trend will continue to a point where we see all executions banned- like they are in most civilised countries. I was suprised to see though that the vote was only 5-4. Even more suprisingly/shockingly executions of 15yr olds was only banned in 1998 and those of the mentally retarded just three years ago. Unbelievable.
• Seems to be a different level of interest on this topic between MoFi and on MeFi. heh
• A license to kill
• Oops. Executions for 15yr olds was banned in 1988. Even still...
• Oh, we might be catching up to the rest of the civilized world on this, finally. Here's hoping.
• I am a death penalty supporter, but I believe that the death penalty will be rescinded in this country within a decade. It is my hope that, as we as a society move away from capital punishment, we in turn take steps to ensure that, for the most heinous of crimes, appropriate punishments other than execution can - and are - applied.
• I don't support capital punishment, but I hate kids, so I'm on the fence concerning this ruling.
• At last the courts recognize that only parents have the right to kill their children.
• Great. And we can't drink yet either.
• Yes, mercurious, but at least we have the abortion trolls. Thanks, oklo!
• Hmm...maybe there are people in the US government who actually ARE concerned about individual human rights. Five of 'em, anyway. This almost gives one reason to be hopeful. I do not support the death penalty, but especially not for minors and the retarded. I feel that life imprisonment is not only a harsher penalty (esp. for 17 year olds, etc., who as I understand it can still be locked away forever), but has the added bonus of not forcing us as a society down to the level of the murderer. My state was one that allowed for the execution of minors, though according to local news, such a sentence had not been given upwards of 40 years. But while we're playing states' rights trivia, guess which state had the most minors on death row? (Around 70, I think...) Hint: it's the same state that was also executing tards. I heard Scalia went ballistic.
• I'm in favor of the death penalty as a legal and rare option, but the way prosecutors in my hometown (Houston/Harris County) use prosecutions for capital crimes to get hanging juries just pisses me off. The logic is that excluding individuals opposed to the death penalty from a jury also excludes people who are less likely to convict if the evidence is marginal. (This is also why you get prosecutors asking for the death penalty for crazy people and TP's 'tards in Texas). I expect to see more minors acquitted of capital crimes as a side effect of this ruling. rodgerd, thanks for explaining the drive-by trolling. I literally didn't get it until you explained it.
• You know, immlass, I never thought of that side-effect, but you're right. The "hang 'em high" attitude would certainly fill juries with people more likely to convict even if required to connect a few dots and bridge a few gaps. And imo, the death penalty is not something you want to be too trigger happy with. Better a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent hang, and all that. Though I have heard people (mostly on internet boards) argue against that idea.
• I thought the troll was funny, but that's because I thought it was referring to post-natal abortion, which I am fully in favour of.
• Texas currently has 29 minors on death row and Alabama is second in the nation with 14 (minors = under 18 at the time of the crime). Overall, 72 inmates are currently on death row for crimes committed as juveniles. And while we're on the subject of innocence, most anti-death penalty groups believe upwards of 100 people have been released from death row with evidence of innocence. While that number can be disputed due to the definition of "innocence" (inmates whose sentences were reduced because of procedural errors, etc), it's fairly probable that at some point in history innocence people have been executed.
• "innocence people" should be "innocent people" of course...
• I don't think there is a single proponent of the death penalty who would seriously advocate for the "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" method. If anything, I think that death penalty supporters want there to be more certainty and less chance of an innocent man being executed, as each incidence where those who would ban the death penalty can say there is real doubt, it lessens society's backing for the death penalty that much more. To which I say: fix the process. Be certain of guilt, be scrupulously fair in application, but retain the ultimate punishment for the worst of crimes.
• To which I say: fix the process. Be certain of guilt, be scrupulously fair in application, but retain the ultimate punishment for the worst of crimes Why, do you think, are people not doing this currently?
• Several reasons: the federal government has left capital punishment administration to the states, and each state has different rules; it's a divisive topic, so any impetus to change would be slowed by vigorous debate; people focus (imo) on the wrong aspects of capital punishment to disagree about ("it's a deterrent!" "no it's not!") and lose sight of the larger picture; and, perhaps worst, I think that the people currently in the position of changing the process are unwilling to admit there are problems with the process in the first place, because that immediately calls their personal actions in furtherance of capital punishment into question - IF the capital punishment process is flawed BUT one has continued to implement it, knowing it was flawed? The implications of that can be staggering, and most of those in positions of power fear those implications, and rightly so. Even so, some people have begun the process. While I may have disagreed with him at the time, former Illinois Governor Ryan commuted the death sentences of everyone on Illinois' death row, citing flaws in the system, when he left office. The current governor has a task force working on this now. And iirc, there was recently a state that proposed to change the law, for capital crimes, from "beyond reasonable doubt" to "beyond all doubt." I don't know if that's even possible, but it's at least an indication that some people see there are flaws and wish to fix them.
• "Well, for those who committed their crime(s) as minors." So I guess adults who commit crimes and then age in reverse are out of luck, huh?
• Fes- If you believe that there's no "kill 'em all", you didn't read the Freeper thread linked in the MeFi article... I read with great interest Scalia's dissent, and found that I agreed with him on some fundementals. This is one of the odd cases where I agree with the ruling, but am not as much in favor of the route that the law took in enacting it. On the one hand, I'm against the death penalty. I think that it's unconscionable to kill a defensless person, and that the fact that a criminal may have already done so does not remove the moral burden from us to comport outselves better. I also disagree with giving the state the power of life and death in these matters. And revenge, for me, is a poor motive for public policy. However, I also believe that every state has the right to decide how they want to deal with the issue (aside from some basics that should be handled nationally, like not executing people by acid bath or pirranas). Because of this, I am wary of the court's decision. I am just not sure that the issue of age of criminal should be so neatly defined across the country. I don't see a lot of difference between a 17-year-old and an 18-year-old. Still, I don't think anyone should be executed in a civilized nation. (And besides, if we kill all of our criminals, who are we going to send to colonize the moon?)
• Several reasons: the federal government has left capital punishment administration to the states ... it's a divisive topic ... people focus on the wrong aspects of capital punishment to disagree about ... and ... people currently in the position of changing the process are unwilling to admit there are problems with the process in the first place Fes, what I meant (but expressed poorly) was this: why, do you think, has capital punishment not been "scrupulously fair in application" in the past? I don't quite see how the reasons you list provide an explanation. (With respect etc but you knew that)
• Sorry about that. I personally think there is merit in the arguments: that racial biases have caused disproportionate numbers of African Americans to be sent death row; that plea bargaining in crimes with multiple offenders have caused some criminals to be assessed the death penalty while others involved in the same crime have escaped it only by virtue of having cut the first deal with the prosecution; that variances in the death penalty processes between states have caused some criminals to get the death penalty while others who commit similar (or worse) crimes escape it due only to factors of geography; that wildly varying differences in the quality of defense representation have sent some to death row while others escape it; and that overzealous (or underzealous) prosecution for media or political effect have affected capital cases, either for or against individual defendants. In my opinion, these factors (and probably others, these are just the ones that come immediately to mind) have created an environment that causes capital punishment to be unevenly applied. If (and to my mind, it is) the idea behind capital punishment is, ultimately, justice (and by proxy, the assessing of appropriate punishment for the worst of crimes), then this uneven application goes a long way toward undermining that ideal, and gives opponents of capital punishment a great deal of ammunition against the practice.
• (no apologies necessary) Do you think that it is possible to create (in western society of today) an ongoing situation whereby capital punishment is applied in a "scrupulously fair" manner?
• js: I think the Freepers, like a lot of sites (cough), succumb (often understandably) to emotional exuberance. Your opinions on the moral aspect are intriguing though, as my opinions are also tied to moral obligation, albeit toward the reverse angle: I feel that some crimes are too heinous, too much of an affront, to society that the only appropriate punishment is the death of the perpetrator, and that we each have a moral obligation to each other to ensure that the perpetrators of these sorts of crimes never are allowed the chance to commit them again. In light of the justice system's inability to truly guarantee that a criminal who commits these crimes will be unable to commit them in the future (via escape, parole, early release, victimizing other prisoners, etc), I yet feel capital punishment is necessary. When the justice system can guarantee that life in prison means "life in prison"? I will absolutely rethink my support for capital punishment. Until then, however, I would like to see a capital punishment that is as fair as it is final.
• quidnunc: I do. But I believe that it would require the federalization of death penalty cases. So long as the states may prosecute and punish capital crimes as they see fit, there will be variation, and while there is variation there will be uneven application.
• I would like to see a capital punishment that is as fair as it is final Thanks for your answers. I put it to you, in closing, that history provides alarmingly few precedents of any institutional activity that is as fair as death.
• When the justice system can guarantee that life in prison means "life in prison"? I think a good step toward this would be the decriminalization of marijuana. Not as far out of left field as you might think--if everyone who is in jail for ONLY marijuana offenses were suddenly released, the prisons would be empty. No overcrowding, less pressure for early release. Plus, I could go down the corner shop and score a deck o' joints and watch the day's troubles go up in smoke...sweeeeet, sweet smoke...
• I can't deny that there is a retributive element to all criminal punishment (and perhaps rightly so), but to me there is no argument in favor of capital punishment that holds up except retribution (i.e., "an eye for an eye," which I disagree with) or Fes's point that there really is no such thing as a guaranteed life sentence. And killing someone for purely retributive reasons, while an idea I have a *lot* of sympathy for, is ethically unacceptable to me. Personally, I'd rather see the creation of that guaranteed life sentence, and overturn the death penalty. It strikes me as the best solution. I'm pulling this half out of my ass, but aren't there studies that indicate that life imprisonment is actually cheaper for the state than capital punishment? Quidders: could you expand on that?
• Granted. It is, however, something I would see the justice system aspire to, rather than simply declare an end to capital punishment and (again, in my opinion) give up all pretense of trying to deliver the appropriate punishment for these sorts of crimes and, subsequently, ignoring what I believe to be an important responsibility of the social contract that binds us together as a society - the responsibility to protect each other from the depradations of those among us who have proven themselves to be capable of the purest of human evils. TenaciousPettle, you and I are in complete agreement on the question of marijuana. The penalties for possession and distribution of cannabis are ludicrous, and what's more have proven, as you reference, disasterous to the prison system, as well as to those people who have been unfortunate enough to have been imprisoned for cannabis crimes. I'm not certain that legalization is the answer? But certainly a full review of the penalties for marijuana related crimes is warranted - and, one might hope, an amnesty.
• And killing someone for purely retributive reasons, while an idea I have a *lot* of sympathy for, is ethically unacceptable to me. I think that stems in many ways from the (perfectly natural, imo) opinion that men are different from animals. We think nothing of euthanizing the dog that has proven vicious, or killing with impunity the rattlesnake that has found it's way into the schoolyard. Yet we draw the line at doing the same for murderers. I agree, the analogy is inapt: people are not animals. But the need - the obligation - to protect each other from those creatures, human AND animal, that have proven themselves dangerous, is I believe one of the cornerstones of society. When we cannot protect each other - or worse, when we opt to simply look the other way - then the ethical lapse is ours, not the murderer's. Vengeance may be a poor gauge of justice, but until we can plumb the depths of the minds of the murderous, and protect ourselves before they have proven themselves dangerous? I contend that it is, really, the only tool we we have.
• I agree. There are some who need to be removed from the outside world permanently, for our safety. We simply cannot risk letting them walk among us ever again. However, if there is a way to create a guaranteed life sentence, permanent removal from society that does not involve killing, then to me that serves the same function more humanely and ethically.
• but aren't there studies that indicate that life imprisonment is actually cheaper for the state than capital punishment? Technically, a life sentence is cheaper than the death penalty due to the avenues of federal appeals (in both number and scope). I don't have the exact numbers, though. However, I never bring the financial argument into play because, well, I feel sorta icky (for lack of a better word) about discussing cost when it comes to lives. When the justice system can guarantee that life in prison means "life in prison"? I will absolutely rethink my support for capital punishment. I have the similar opinion, but from the opposite side. If the application of the death penalty was more even, more fair, more just, more whatever, then although I wouldn't necessarily rethink my stance, the death penalty would just be a small blip on my radar rather than something I actively work against.
• I feel sorta icky (for lack of a better word) about discussing cost when it comes to lives. Oh, me too. Please don't misunderstand -- I'm not proposing that we decide the question based on how much it costs us. I only bring it up to suggest that it could be very much in the government's practical interest to permanently lock someone up. Only a fool thinks that politics are based primarily on moral considerations, but tell a politician it'll save him some money, and he might listen a little more closely.
• Fes, *you* are obviously comfortable with "kill em all and let God sort it out" on some level as an advocate of the death penalty. There is *no* perfect process that can avoid innocents being executed. It mystifies me that you don't think the government should be involved in health care, because you aren't sure they'll run it properly, but you're happy at the idea of the same government deciding whether or not you die.
• *you* are obviously comfortable with "kill em all and let God sort it out" on some level as an advocate of the death penalty. There is *no* perfect process that can avoid innocents being executed. If you believe that is the case, then I have failed in communicating my opinion, and for that I apologize. At the same time, there is no perfect process in any human activity, rodgerd - and yet, murderers must be dealt with somehow. I have advocated ensuring that the application of the death penalty be as fair as is humanly possible. But no - nothing in this world is perfect. I must concede the point. It mystifies me that you don't think the government should be involved in health care, because you aren't sure they'll run it properly, but you're happy at the idea of the same government deciding whether or not you die. Apples and oranges, the salient aspect being money, I think. Government has proven its greed, and putting it in direct authority of the funds required to have a nationalized system of health care would, in my opinion, prove far too much for their meager restraint. I mentioned the federalization of capital punishment as a method to reduce the differences in the way states apply the death penalty - one set of laws governing capital punishment, rather than 50. There's minimal revenue, however, in executing murderers, so far as I can tell.
• Fes- I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for being the civil, intelligent commenter that you are. I disagree with you about the death penalty, but I think that there is a lot of common ground here, and that it's just really nice to see that there's a fair amount of common ground. Too often I fear that Freepers represent conservatism in this country. I agree that there are some crimes so heinous as to place the offender past the point of having the privelege of freedom (if left up to me, things like rape-murders would entail solitary confinement for life), but I can't ever sanction the state killing someone defenseless. I would, however, remove the suicide watch provisions and let people kill themselves in prison if they chose. But hey, that's just me spitballin'. I'll remember this thread the next time I make a blanket statement about what conservatives believe, lumping them all in with Coulter or Savage...
• Deadline is a really good documentary about the death penalty.
• I think life in prison is worse than death. For the most heinous crimes, life in prison is the worst punishment. The only mitgating thing I can think of is the hope of the innocent that they might be exonerated. Heck, in the current crime filled and abusive penal system, even a few months in prison can subject someone to rape and torture well in excess of the "punishment" society thinks they deserve.
• Fes- I'd like to again point out that the problem with the death penalty is its finality. If, as you say, nothing is perfect, then the death penalty should not be used. It's no consolation to families of men executed as killers if they're absolved post-mortem.
• Word, js.
• I believe someone wiser than I once said "The degree of civilization a society exhibits is best determined by how it treats its prisoners.” (Some Russian writer, I believe).
• Sounds like the kinda thing a Russian writer would say, since most of them probably spent some time in the joint at one point or another. ;)
• Never really had too much of a problem with the death penalty for miners. I mean, it beats the hell out of the suffering that goes along with black lung disease.
• I really want to thank Fes for his comments in this thread. I reject the use of the criminal justice system for utilitarian purposes (deterrence, rehabilition), as it treats people as a means and it ignores the importance of desert (which cuts both ways, I think). But I've always felt uneasy about capital punishment, maybe because retribution seems so brutal. Anyway, you've convinced me, Fes.
• Man on internet is convinced by other man on internet! Better buy a lottery ticket, you won't see *this* often!
• mental note: most jokes don't translate very well on the internet.
• I agree with jb that life in prison with no chance of parole - indeterminent years, since you don't know how long you're going to live - could be worse than the death penalty. So, maybe the compromise position is to ban mandated executions, but allow inmates to opt to die at any point in their incarceration? That'd take care of the interminable appeals process in the death penalty scenario, while allowing for new evidence to free folks who didn't really do the crime and hung in there. Smo - don't quite understand what you mean by "utilitarian purposes." My brother is a correctional officer, and I know that he could give you examples of successful rehabilition under certain circumstances. What I think you're saying is that we shouldn't try to turn lesser criminal around, but just let them serve their sentences and go back the the life of crime that they had before. If you ponder it a bit, doesn't it make sense that offering education and skills to people who are going to re-enter society could divert some of them from the same old thing? And, Wolof, that's happened at least once before on MoFi. Are you up to challenge of finding that instance? Oh, and, seems to me coppermac should have chimed im by now. Has he deserted us?
• If, as you say, nothing is perfect, then the death penalty should not be used. Sometimes there is incontrovertible evidence of someone's guilt. If you rape, torture and kill somebody on videotape or document it with photos, you need to die. When there is a sentence option that really is 'you are locked up in solitary until the day you die of either suicide or natural causes', I'll go for that. Not because I think they deserve to live, but rather that you think they shouldn't die. Until that day comes, I guess I'll just have to be content as bait for paroled sexual sadists while the justice system dithers. But really, for me, it's beside the point. Because if some sociopathic sonofabitch messes with me or mine, I'll hunt him down like a dog and do my own time. If, ironically, I drew the death penalty, so be it. I did it deliberately, and so I knew what I was in for. Step up, or step off.
• Even if someone deserves to die, that doesn't mean we should kill them. Unless you want to live in Texas, where "He needed killin'" is a valid murder defense.
• If execution is not cruel and unusual, then how is it that any other sort of punishment for a serious crime be deemed "cruel and unusual?" We won't neuter sex offenders who ask for it because it would be cruel and unusual. We won't let murderers participate in medical experiments because it would be cruel and unusual. Shouldn't an offender be able to decide if something is not cruel and unusual?
• Even if someone deserves to die, that doesn't mean we should kill them. That's an opinion, not a fact. This is a situation you would handle differently than I. So it goes. If execution is not cruel and unusual... It is cruel and unusual. So's life. I'd have to say the death penalty is one of life's easier things to avoid - don't, with sound mind, deliberately rape, torture, and slaughter people. If that's too much to ask, then I don't want you around anyone you might maim or kill. Either you are physically unable to do so - permanent lock-down, in solitary - or you suicide, or someone else punches your ticket. There are choices to be made. Choose wisely.
• Or rather: don't get convicted for it, regardless of guilt. As innocent people have certainly been executed and guilty people have certainly gone free, your simple tautology of "Don't want to be executed, don't murder" fails on both counts. And yes, my view that the only justification for killing is an immediate threat to one's life or limb is an opinion, not a fact. (It's also, generally, the law in both the US and Canada.) But the "I'm a badass" schtick isn't a compelling reason for me to change my opinion, no matter how many Vonnegut lines you lace it with. I suppose I prefer at least a veneer of civilized thought over my revenge fantasies. So it goes.
• Or rather: don't get convicted for it, regardless of guilt. Or change the laws so you can remove dangerous offenders from society permanently by means other than execution; or seek to make the establishment of irrefutable guilt in a capital crime case much more stringent with a higher standard of evidence required (see videotaped or photographed crimes, corroborated confessions, independently verified DNA matches from same tissue types,etc.) and making sure defendants get a well-qualified capital case-experienced defense. But that would be way too hard. Polarizing is more fun. So let's continue to allow incredibly dangerous people to continue hurting and killing; and/or let's continue executing minority defendents with dubious evidence and inexperienced or incompetent lawyers. Who said you should change your opinion? Me stating mine has no bearing on yours, other than, apparently, giving you a schticky moral wedgie. Go veneer, go!
• Actually, I have it on good authority that I am in fact a legitimate "badass", given the incident in Reno a few years back.
• Smo - don't quite understand what you mean by "utilitarian purposes." Maybe I should have explained better. I take it that most people believe the criminal justice system has three main objectives: deterrence, rehabilitation, and retribution. I take the view that the first, if used to justify the system, ultimately collapses. I come to this by means of a reductio. The principle upon which I do ground the criminal justice system then reveals the second as a violation of justice. Deterrence, it seems to me, is most obviously utilitarian. Certainly general deterrence is: the idea that you punish this or that person so the rest of society knows to avoid the same behavior. If this goal was most important, then it wouldn't matter much if the person who society "made an example of" was guilty. So long as the rest of society "got the point," the objective would be met. But this is plainly unjust. The idea that the justice system ought to deter people from reoffending is also problematic. If you simply want to deter people from committing this or that crime, then you could set the punishments arbitrarily high for all crimes, and this would meet the objective. Again, this seems obviously unjust. Western society tends to take the view that not only does guilt matter, but so does the nature of the crime. I would agree with our mainstream views on this. So it seems to me that if these things matter, we ought to ask why they matter. My answer is: people ought to get what they deserve, both when they deserve rewards and when they deserve punishments. This is tied, ultimately, to Kant, and the importance he places upon treating people as ends in themselves, his respect for persons, and his recognition of people as rational individuals. If you ponder it a bit, doesn't it make sense that offering education and skills to people who are going to re-enter society could divert some of them from the same old thing? Yes, but I don't think it's right to do so. This sounds prima facie absurd, but not, I don't think, if you agree with the importance I place on desert as intrinsic to justice. If someone makes the choice to violate the law, and the law itself is just, I believe that he forfeits his right to complain about retribution as it is visited upon him. So long as the retribution is commensurate with the crime, I assert that retribution is not only just, but even that not exacting said retribution is a violation of justice, as it doesn't respect the choice he made when he committed the crime, which also entails the punishment. In short, then, I assert that he does not deserve leniency, so he should not receive it. He made his choice. I think we must respect it for all it entails. I take it that offering the criminal things like education and "extra chances" to clean himself up violates this principle. It's true that there is a social good promoted by the rehabilitation of criminals. So there is a utilitarian basis for it. It seems to me, however, that this good requires us to violate principles basic to justice. So I take the view that it isn't (morally, ethically) right, and I reject it, as much as the intuitionist in me tells me that I may not want to.
• Allowing (as I think nearly everyone does) that there are some people who by their actions deserve to die (or "need killin' ") and that the system is not perfect, the ethical question becomes "Is it morally acceptable to kill innocent people if doing so insures that at least some guilty people will also be killed?" If it depends on how many, what's the cost/benefit ratio? For me, there isn't one.
• And I have it on good authority that I am NOT a badass.
• the "I'm a badass" schtick Have to say I'm curious as to what gave you the idea that my bad-assness is, as you put it, a schtick. "An entertainment routine or gimmick." Is it because you were looking to score points in a difference of opinion? Or is it because you assume the descriptions "badass" (I prefer definition #5, myself) and "monkeyfilter member" cannot be applied to the same person? Or have you just not been paying attention? Care to elaborate?
• No one who makes men as happy as you do could possibly have an unattractive body, much less a bad ass. Perhaps that is all that was meant by it.
• You may very well be right. My ass is much admired among the mysterious Ass Illuminati. BTW...do lots of people use Google as a vastly over-powered spell-checker, or is that just me?
• When asked "Is moneyjane a badass?", BrainBoost's reply, among others: "Queen of the badass leaders herself." I think that we can consider this matter settled. and yes, Google makes a very handy overkill spell-checker
• Allowing (as I think nearly everyone does) that there are some people who by their actions deserve to die I don't believe we have the right to determine who dies and, following it logically, to act on such a determination. Just my badass opinion. I use WordWeb as my spellchecker. It's more of a dictionary/thesaurus, but close enough.
• To expand a bit on my earlier post (treatise?), I want to make clear what it is Fes said that convinced me. I want to agree with him that what constitutes a heinous crime (and a just law and a just punishment) is necessarily a social contract kind of question (i.e. I believe this is where both rights and desert come from). While I don't necessarily agree with (what I believe is) his assertion that deterrence is the foundation on which we want to set justice, it is nevertheless an important part of why we would want to bother with societies and social contracts in the first place (i.e. the psychological motivation for them). In other words, people would decide on laws and punishments from within a social contract situation; I believe these laws and punishments would be guided largely by basic, freely agreed-to rights and the principle of desert. The latter would essentially eliminate the possibility for "(guilty) criminals' rights (to leniency)." The question of unjust administration is an important one, but here again I am persuaded by Fes' arguments. I reject the idea that we can't use capital punishment because it's "final," if we are very careful in the administration. TP's question is, I think, loaded against capital punishment, but my basic response would be: is there a logical reason why innocent people have to be executed? If you take it on faith that there will be innocent people executed because the system can never be perfect, let me ask this instead: is it right to jail people for life, if doing so means that some innocent people will spend their whole lives in jail? Wouldn't this line of reasoning work just as well for any kind of punishment? I think the solution is to be very careful.
• I just used Google as a spellchecker last night when MS Word failed to figure out longitivity.
• I used google the other day to check my spelling of "dilapidation". Dictionary.com and m-w.com are for checking definitions. Longevity?
• Longevity? Yeah, longevity. (no, I haven't installed that firefox plug yet.)
• I think moneyjane is pretty damn cool.
• If you take it on faith that there will be innocent people executed because the system can never be perfect, let me ask this instead: is it right to jail people for life, if doing so means that some innocent people will spend their whole lives in jail? It's prefereable certainly, imo, as at least then there would be the possibility of righting the wrong (see gazillions of well-documented cases). If you kill someone and then find out it was a mistake, there's not that chance. And NTI, I wasn't necessarily implying that I know who deserves to die--just that I can imagine actions that, if committed by people, could be said to deserve death. However, whether you are then morally justified in delivering that death is another question, debated ad nauseam above.
• Well said tenacious p!
• It's prefereable certainly, imo, as at least then there would be the possibility of righting the wrong (see gazillions of well-documented cases). If you kill someone and then find out it was a mistake, there's not that chance. This is one of the reasons I opposed capital punishment. But I recognize that people on death row in the US might receive more chances for legal challenge despite their shorter lives than people who end up serving life in prison. The guy on death row, while indeed having less time to clear his name, may nevertheless have the same (or better) opportunity at it overall because of the extra privaleges he has while he is alive. In terms of an ability to be able to clear one's name, death row might be prefereable (maybe not, of course, for the obviously guilty, but too bad for them). So I think the system has (or could have) adequate checks built in. I have sympathy for your argument (and all of them expressed in this thread, actually), but I guess I fall on the other side on this one.
• Smo: I sorta, kinda think I get some of your drift on deterrence vs. justice, but not all of it. "Deterrence, it seems to me, is most obviously utilitarian. Certainly general deterrence is: the idea that you punish this or that person so the rest of society knows to avoid the same behavior. If this goal was most important, then it wouldn't matter much if the person who society "made an example of" was guilty. So long as the rest of society "got the point," the objective would be met. But this is plainly unjust." I don't think most of us agree that deterrence takes precedence over justice. which you seem to be implying for when deterrence is an issue. What we have is a "justice" system. Deterrence and rehabilition only enter the picture once justice has been served. Think of it this way - if "justice" was not served, than the wrong person was convicted. That certainly wouldn't persuade the real wrong-doer, or others, from repeating crimes.If we gave the impression (which we do) that convicting SOMEBODY is more important that convicting the actual doer, well, we've forgotten what justice is and turned it to a sort of a poker game. And, I think many criminals are gamblers. The justice card has to be played first. Even more importantly, the worst crimes (murder, rape, etc.) tend to be crimes of passion (which don't tend to be repeated) or done by sociopaths, who don't believe that they can be wrong. But, I'm not convinced that deterrence is an effective aim. If I run a stop sign, it's because I don't think I'll be caught. Blow that up a few hundred times, and you've got the thinking of people who do much worse things. So, the current trend in the US toward sentencing people to harsh sentences based on three stikes laws won't work. In light of all that, what are "just deserts"? The current temperature in the US is to "send 'em away forever" for relatively minor recidivism when they've been convicted a few times on relatively minor charges. My feeling is that many of those sentences are "cruel and unusual", but if we have to send them to jail, why not try to offer them the opportunity to get out of the sink holes they found themselves in via rehabilitation? Once justice has been served, wouldn't turning around those who can be saved a good thing? Your ability to disregard the fact that all those in prison are human beings is a bit offputting. Cold logic isn't going to solve these problems.
• Think of it this way - if "justice" was not served, than the wrong person was convicted. That certainly wouldn't persuade the real wrong-doer, or others, from repeating crimes. Only if they knew that the wrong person was convicted. My point is: imagine the government was so good at deception and cover ups that they could convince everyone that the innocent man had indeed committed the crime. Better yet, imagine that the government had invented the whole thing. Maybe there was no real crime. This charade might deter people from committing the same crime, if they see that there's a punishment for such things, but it wouldn't be just. Now it may be that this scheme would do little or nothing to prevent most crimes, I'll grant you that, but my point is a negative one: that deterrence can't be all there is to justice, and that sometimes they are in opposition to each other. I do want to agree with you on three strikes laws, the "send 'em away forever" attitude, and the like. I think punishments should be commensurate with the crimes committed, period. Once a man serves his setence, I don't see why society should continue to make him pay, which is what three strikes laws and insane penalties for mild recidivism does, IMO. As for "send 'em away forever," this tends to violate the principle of desert. The penalties in the US for the possession of pot, for example, would be out of the question (victimless crime), as would other "tough on crime" measures, at least where they exist simply to deter others. (Besides, I agree with you: I'm not convinced they do even that) Once justice has been served, wouldn't turning around those who can be saved a good thing? Good point, and a tough question. I guess it depends on how these programs work. Because I see justice as desert, I think it's important that criminals serve their sentences, and that these sentences are punishments. I don't think we should sacrifice the retributive aspect of justice for rehabilitation, otherwise we aren't treating the victim's interests seriously. So de facto bribes should not go on; neither should criminals get opportunities that people outside of prison would not enjoy. I also think that after a sentence is served, the criminal ought to be free to go. It's improper, therefore, to sentence a rapist to 15 years in prison (if we were to agree that this is indeed commensurate with the crime), then continue to hold him to try to turn him around. This is a violation of his liberty. But, as I think about this a bit more, there is room here. I can't see any reason why society shouldn't be allowed to try to persuade criminals. I see nothing wrong with, say, priests or psychiatrists visiting criminals trying to convince them that what they did was wrong. And providing them with the means to educate themselves doesn't necessarily violate justice (people who aren't in prison have the same opportunities, free of charge, with public libraries). Besides, from a psychological POV, I think criminals have to accept this, otherwise attempts to reform them will fail more often than not. For the most part, I don't believe people follow our most important laws because they have to, but because they see why they should. So I guess my answer to your question is: it depends on how we do it. The ends cannot justify the means, but if the means are okay, why not?