Is death even a harm to those that die? Its not like the executed persits on in a post-death state, being deprived of the life that was taken from him.

It seems to me that killing someone isn't a punishement (beyond the actual mechanics of getting a needle stuck in your arm, and the fear you would preceeding and during it), rather the death penalty just removes a persons capacity to be punished entirely.

Fuck Freud and fuck the totality of the psyche. "Humanity" is the sum-total of the embodied beings who privately have "impulses, desires and inclinations" (and more) which we can not directly share with each other, but who publicly share a culture of material goods which we produce and consume together.

This is the final word on the subject. Anything further you might add on the matter will just be sour grapes.

lol... I guess we will have to agree to disagree then.

Deterrence and costs are substantial arguments against the death penalty, given that deterrence is one of the main reasons used to justify the death penalty and the costs are huge.

The possibility of convicting someone who is innocent is obviously a relevant argument, but only insofar that person would otherwise be acquitted during his life-time in prison. I have no idea what the chances are of that... — ChatteringMonkey

Yes, it's highly relevant. There have been cases, like the one given as an example in the article, where there's a consensus that it's a wrongful conviction, yet it's now too late, given that he was put to death. It's never too late whilst the prisoner is alive. That's a big difference.

Anyway, my point was more against an a priori dogmatic rejection of the death penalty as barbaric or some such. If there are good reasons for rejecting it, like the possibility of innocence, i'm on board with that. — ChatteringMonkey

It is barbaric, and the possibility and actual occurrence of innocents being killed is part of the reason why. It's also barbaric because of the hideous consequences of it not going quite as planned. (There are some details of this in the article). And there are probably other reasons that could be given that it's barbaric, but these are enough.

Im not saying the USA should do this... But what if there were shootings of criminals? What if the punishment for a heinous crime like murdering a child, raping someone, brutally killing another, armed robbery, etc was always worse than the crime? That would successfully deter a lot of people say, "Well, if I kill this person and am found guilty, I am going to get my head blown off in public and my body burned to ashes and disposed of, or get hanged in public and then cut into pieces and thrown into a landfill" or, "If I rape someone and get caught, they are going to cut off my penis."

I might actually support this... — Blue Lux

Yes, I might also. (If I was a depraved savage, which I'm not).

LOL! Only because the nations who commit collateral damage control the international courts. Which goes to the point that the legal definition of murder is whatever society decides it is. — Marchesk

But at least there's a system in place, even if in practice it's arguably corrupt. It's not supposed to be such that murder is whatever is in a persons or a societies or a nations interest to call murder.

Personally, I despise how the concept of collateral damage is used, and I think that abortion should be the last resort, but I recognise that calling these things murder is not accurate and is an appeal to emotion through language.

There was a Columbian serial killer who after being released from a psychiatric hospital disappeared and his whereabouts remain unknown. He was convicted for killing over 100 girls (ages 9 to 11) in South America (having led police to 53 graves).

Maybe he stopped. Maybe not. — Marchesk

What's that an argument for? No system is perfect. If he was sent to a psychiatric hospital, then there was probably evidence which was professionally considered as a basis for his being sent there. Are you suggesting that he should have been killed instead? Is that what we should do with those deemed criminally insane?

Humans are brutal. Get over it. Brutal people deserve brutal consequences. Simple. There are simply too many people in the world. There is no room for these people. — Blue Lux

You have expressed the views of a brute, so what is to be your consequence?

There could be machines that do it instead of a person. — Blue Lux

You really haven't thought this one through, have you? You would need people to operate the machinery and to handle the convicted criminals. Remember also, that at least some of these convicted criminals will be innocent. Would you be willing to put an innocent man into a penis chopping machine and then pull the lever?

I said "bullshit" when Margaret Thatcher said there is no such thing as society, and I say "bullshit" when you say there is no such thing as humanity. — Bitter Crank

:up:

re you suggesting that he should have been killed instead? Is that what we should do with those deemed criminally insane? — Sapientia

I'm suggesting it would be preferable to kill someone like that than to let them go because of good behavior, given their propensity toward killing, and how adept sociopaths are at fooling people.

There was this guy named Charlie Brandt who shot his mom and dad when he was 13. He spent a year in a psychiatric hospital. The doctors couldn't figure out what was wrong with him, so he was released back to his family (the father survived the shooting). He seems to go on and have a normal life, getting married. Then, 33 years later he kills his wife and her niece before hanging himself. There's reason to believe he had been an active serial killer during the years he was married.

I'm suggesting it would be preferable to kill someone like that than to let them go because of good behavior, given their propensity toward killing, and how adept sociopaths are at fooling people. — Marchesk

It would be better not to let them go than to kill them.

It would be better not to let them go than to kill them. — Sapientia

Maybe, but I'm not convinced by the moral argument against capital punishment in this case. If you murder a bunch of people in cold blood, why should you continue living?

Maybe, but I'm not convinced by the moral argument against capital punishment in this case. If you murder a bunch of people in cold blood, why should you continue living? — Marchesk

You mean, if you're convicted of murdering a bunch of people in cold blood...

And I've presented several reasons against it. It's expensive, it doesn't work as a deterrent, it kills innocent people, and it's barbaric.

The thing is I don't think locking people up for life is any less barbaric. You are essentially taking their life away just the same. The difference is that it looks superficially more moral, because it doesn't involve the actual act of killing someone. We 'just' lock them up and forget about them...

That has been my argument from the start.

I never said deterrence or costs where good arguments for the death penalty.

And as for things going wrong with execution, sure, but at the same time plenty can go wrong with life imprisonment. That would actually be one of my main agruments contra life imprisonement for certain categories of criminals. You can never exclude the possibility of psychopaths or sociopaths doing harm to other inmates, prison personel, or even escape, if you keep them arround.

The thing is I don't think locking people up for life is any less barbaric. You are essentially taking their life away just the same. The difference is that it looks superficially more moral, because it doesn't involve the actual act of killing someone. We 'just' lock them up and forget about them... — ChatteringMonkey

It's not barbaric. What's the alternative? It would be more barbaric to let them loose to cause havoc in society. You can't have a civilised society without prisons. That's the reality.

And we don't just lock them up and forget about them. Most end up eventually being released.

I never said deterrence or costs where good arguments for the death penalty. — ChatteringMonkey

I know, you said that you don't think that they're substantial arguments, and that's what I disputed.

And as for things going wrong with execution, sure, but at the same time plenty can go wrong with life imprisonment. That would actually be one of my main agruments contra life imprisonement for certain categories of criminals. You can never exclude the possibility of psychopaths or sociopaths doing harm to other inmates, prison personel, or even escape, if you keep them arround. — ChatteringMonkey

That's a different kettle of fish, and again, what's the alternative? If one inmate kills another inmate, then the other inmate would be guilty. The same thing can happen on the streets, with one person and another person. If the death penalty goes wrong, then the state is responsible.

It's expensive. — Sapientia

It doesn't have to be.

it doesn't work as a deterrent, — Sapientia

But it does guarantee that person never re-offends.

it kills innocent people, — Sapientia

This is a problem. The standard should be really high for receiving the death penalty.

and it's barbaric — Sapientia

Is barbaric some kind of moral argument? We shouldn't do things that are barbaric as a society because they're barbaric, because I guess only Barbarians did those things in the past. Unlike say, the Romans.

Lol really?

I am a brute now because I am personally involved with someone whom has been raped and abused and I believe whole heartedly (call it my Jungian shadow or whatever) that that person should be tortured.

Vengeance is not an illusion. It is not inconsequential either. And I am merely reciprocating, cancelling it out.

They would have to determine whether or not someone is guilty.

The legal system simply needs an upgrade in its determinations of whom are innocent or guilty.

It doesn't have to be. — Marchesk

Well it is in reality, and why should I simply take your word for it? You've fully costed a business plan which outdoes all of the competition within that market, have you?

But it does guarantee that person never re-offends. — Marchesk

At considerable costs, financially and ethically. And imprisonment for life duration would do the same thing, except it has the advantage that if the person is found to have been wrongfully convicted, then they'll be released. You can't release a dead person. You can't undo the death sentence, once carried out.

This is a problem. The standard should be really high for receiving the death penalty. — Marchesk

It can never be high enough in reality. That's pie in the sky thinking, or thinking with a ruthless acceptance of killing innocents.

Is barbaric some kind of moral argument? We shouldn't do things that are barbaric as a society because they're barbaric, because I guess only Barbarians did those things in the past. Unlike say, the Romans. — Marchesk

Yes, of course it being barbaric is a moral argument against it. Just think of other barbaric practices, such as burning people at the stake. And yes, haha, very clever, I see what you did there with that reference to the Romans. You know what I mean.

Rofl and in "not being a depraved Savage" you negate your human-ness for something greater and better. Oh you noble stoic!
In this you would rather protect those who brutally murder people and rape them! And whom rape children!

Bwaahahahahahaha

I say we be as barbaric as possible with regard to the punishment of those found guilty of heinous crimes!

Vengeance! Reciprocity! What they inflicted, the torture and the pain, should be exactly mirrored and given back to them.

That is the only ethical solution.

An eye for an eye?

Lol really?

I am a brute now because I am personally involved with someone whom has been raped and abused and I believe whole heartedly (call it my Jungian shadow or whatever) that that person should be tortured.

Vengeance is not an illusion. It is not inconsequential either. And I am merely reciprocating, cancelling it out. — Blue Lux

Yes, really. That's repulsive, brutish thinking which ought to be condemned in the strongest possible terms. Stop using your relationship with someone who has been raped and abused as an excuse for your vile thoughts and desires.

And you're not "merely" anything. You don't "merely" advocate the most gruesome and sickening methods of torture and execution. Get a sense of perspective.

They would have to determine whether or not someone is guilty.

The legal system simply needs an upgrade in its determinations of whom are innocent or guilty. — Blue Lux

Oh, right, it "simply needs an upgrade". Some of your comments are incredibly naive. Have you the slightest idea how complicated what you're talking about would be?

Vile thoughts and desires? That person deserves to be brutally punished! What are you some Godly ascetic who has given up all desires and relations to the world in which you are manifest?!
Yes, I accept my brutal desires! They are justified!
"Wisdom"!

...

Yes, in fact I do realize that humans have seriously screwed up and gotten themselves into holes they may never get out of.

I say we be as barbaric as possible with regard to the punishment of those found guilty of heinous crimes! — Blue Lux

Guess what? Fortunately it doesn't matter what you say! At least not in any developed nation, like here in the UK. We're a civilised nation.

Lol, and it is VERY WISE of you to judge my actual thoughts and feelings and emotions and desires.
This is a thread.
And I was, TBH, just positing an idea of what might be justified.

I don't speak in absolutes, contrary to you

You can stop commenting now. It's pointless. You've said what you think, and it counts for nothing. I don't want your nonsense littering the discussion.

Well it is in reality, and why should I simply take your word for it? You've fully costed a business plan which outdoes all of the competition within that market, have you? — Sapientia

I'm guessing hanging and the guillotine were a lot cheaper, not that I'm advocating that, although I'm not sure giving someone a lethal injection is that much better.

Probably the high cost comes from all the appeals and housing these prisoners in their own wing of the prison while appeals are exhausted and the state gets around to executing them.

But it could be a whole lot cheaper if we skipped most of that. I realize there's a reason for the appeals in not wanting to execute an innocent person. Thus the requirement has to be really high. There are some crimes were there is no way the perp is going to be found innocent. The evidence is overwhelming and they confess while leading police to yet more evidence.