Crime and Punishment - Speculation

A.J.Armitage · 2003-11-26 15:34:44

If so, it behooves us all to allow for a way to undo anything that our institutions or we do.

Jail time can't be undone either. You can let someone out, but that doesn't give back the time already spent in jail.

Bill White · 2003-11-26 16:23:21

My understanding of the capital punishment issue was greatly influenced by a scene from the movie Das Boot which about a German U-boat in WW2

The U-boat was lying silently on the bottom of the Med Sea (I believe) and British destroyers were searching and depth charging the hell out of it. Silence was essential or they all would die. One sailor cracks under the strain and starts banging pipes with a heavy wrench (spanner for our UK-ian brethren). The crew starts to wrestle with this guy but he is too strong and too crazed to be stopped and keeps banging the pipes. The captain gets his pistol, the only firearm on board, and charges through the boat determined to shoot the stress crazed crewman before he gets them all killed by the British. Fortunately, the medic's mate stuffs a chlorofoam cloth in the guy's mouth just in time and the fellow goes unconscious and is not shot.

The moral?

Society has the right to impose capital punishment =IF= it is the only way it can protect itself. However, to impose capital punishment is truly a confession of weakness. A society that cannot persuade its citizens to behave without the routine use of capital punishment is deeply dysfunctional, IMHO.

A strong, healthy society has little need for capital punishment just as genuinely good parents can raise well behaved children without spanking. Its the lazy folks who prefer the death penalty (and spanking) although I will concede both may be necessary on rare occasions.

A firestarter topic, no?

A related scenario:

My family and I are walking on a city street. A madman jumps out to attack us. In my left pocket I have a .357 Magnum and in my right pocket I have a taser or stun gun or pepper spray.

If I use the gun knowing that non-lethal force would stop the assailant I am guilty of murder, IMHO.

= = =

Any Marsian settlement that needs to use capital punishment to maintain social stability is in really big trouble. However, if that need arises, the settlers must be prepared to do what is necessary.

= = =

In contemporary America, the death penalty debate is actually a subterfuge for racial politics, rather like Ronald Reagan proclaiming the importance of "states rights" in Selma Alabama. To impose the death penalty in a racially/socially disproportionate manner and as a tool of racial domination is vile hypocrisy.

IMHO

clark · 2003-11-26 19:08:50

sane and principled. too rare. it tends to get lost in the fire and the brimstone. IMHO.

Cobra Commander · 2003-11-26 19:56:48

Most agree that humanity, and our institutions, are fallible. If so, it behooves us all to allow for a way to undo anything that our institutions or we do.
You kill someone, it's done. You can't undo that. We can't undo the wrong we might commit. So why do it?

Okay. Let's assume for a moment that it is possible to infallibly determine guilt or innocence in all cases. Any objections then? Just curious.

As for the possibility of undoing a wrong, it doesn't really hold up. If I were falsely accused of a capital crime, sent to prison for five, ten, fifteen years; then released after the error was discovered... I'd be a dangerous and very angry individual. I can only assume that I'm not the only one who would react this way. Convicting the innocent is horrible whatever the penalty, pretending that it can be undone is fantasy and overlooks the true horror of the event.

Not that capital punishment need be a mandatory sentence for anything, but the option should exist. If done periodically and publicly it is a deterrent for premeditated crimes.

clark · 2003-11-26 20:06:22

Okay. Let's assume for a moment that it is possible to infallibly determine guilt or innocence in all cases. Any objections then?

Yes.

As for the possibility of undoing a wrong, it doesn't really hold up. If I were falsely accused of a capital crime, sent to prison for five, ten, fifteen years; then released after the error was discovered... I'd be a dangerous and very angry individual. I can only assume that I'm not the only one who would react this way.

If you wrong someone, you can't really undo it. yeah, the point isn't lost. but you kill someone, well, they're dead. it's never right.

we say self defense is okay- you do what you have to. but with capital punishment, we apply only after we have the criminal. we have them at a point in time where we don't have to kill them. we do it as a matter of expediancy and as a demonstration... but that just dosen't make any sense, at least not morally.

Cobra Commander · 2003-11-26 21:25:13

If you wrong someone, you can't really undo it. yeah, the point isn't lost. but you kill someone, well, they're dead. it's never right.

Sometimes it is, at least in my view. Sometimes killing people is the right and moral thing to do.

we have them at a point in time where we don't have to kill them. we do it as a matter of expediancy and as a demonstration... but that just dosen't make any sense, at least not morally.

We never actually have to kill anyone. When some thug attacks you on the street you could shoot him in both knees and elbows to completely incapacitate him... Well, I don't suppose you can in California, but that's a whole other issue Following this logic, it is never moral to kill anyone. Many people subscribe to this and if it works for them, fine. But it seems to me that if executing one murderer or rapist prevents just one murder or rape, either through deterence or guaranteeing that this individual can never repeat his crime; it's worth it.

Hazer · 2003-11-27 01:47:04

And unfortunately, you cannot measure crimes left uncommitted...That unfairly slants the capital punishment debate to begin with. With deterrence and capital punishment, the ultimate question is whether the potential capital offender fears death enough to go through with his crime.
If he truly does not fear death, then you have no other choice then to have capital punishment-as someone who doesn't fear death will gladly take others with them.

My family and I are walking on a city street. A madman jumps out to attack us. In my left pocket I have a .357 Magnum and in my right pocket I have a taser or stun gun or pepper spray.
If I use the gun knowing that non-lethal force would stop the assailant I am guilty of murder, IMHO.

Concerning personal defense:
You are not guilty of murder in any moral sense. You cannot know whether or not your nonlethal weapons will stop him.
I would much rather prefer to use a nonlethal weapon to stop an assailant, but when the threat of the assailant is uncertain, it is much wiser to err on the side of using a lethal weapon-as one will surely stop the assailant *hehe* dead in their tracks.
For instance, in my home State, it is not a crime to gun down-or in some way kill an intruder who breaks into your house at night. No wrong is committed, no matter what the intentions of the intruder were.

clark · 2003-11-27 05:23:39

is capital punishment really self defense? As a society, are we protecting ourselves, or are we really just trying to 'send a message'?

Hazer · 2003-11-27 23:08:47

is capital punishment really self defense? As a society, are we protecting ourselves, or are we really just trying to 'send a message'?

Capital punishment is self-defense in one sense, that by letting society protect itself-you are protecting yourself. It is society defending itself against those who would drag it into barbarism. Capital punishment is a just a weapon.
Clark, the whole point of capital punishment is to send a message-as far as I can tell. Sure, you can still rape and murder a young girl-but you do it in the full knowledge that you will likely lose your life for this act.
How can anyone respect the Law when they know that the Law can only go so far?
Sure, I'm all for there being extensive review before the death penalty is applied, but the important thing is that it is used.

Will future Martians resort to "spacing" Johnny Murderer? Very likely.

Bill White · 2003-11-28 12:15:27

is capital punishment really self defense? As a society, are we protecting ourselves, or are we really just trying to 'send a message'?
Capital punishment is self-defense in one sense, that by letting society protect itself-you are protecting yourself. It is society defending itself against those who would drag it into barbarism. Capital punishment is a just a weapon.
Clark, the whole point of capital punishment is to send a message-as far as I can tell. Sure, you can still rape and murder a young girl-but you do it in the full knowledge that you will likely lose your life for this act.
How can anyone respect the Law when they know that the Law can only go so far?
Sure, I'm all for there being extensive review before the death penalty is applied, but the important thing is that it is used.
Will future Martians resort to "spacing" Johnny Murderer? Very likely.

=IF= killing someone who threatens your existence truly is the =ONLY= means available for your survival =THEN= I have no problem with capital punishment. Back to the Das Boot example - - had here been no chloroform available (or other non lethal means) the skipper would not only have the right to shoot the crazed sailor, I believe he would have the moral obligation to shoot the crazed sailor.

In real life however, capital punishment all too often relied upon as a lazy way to avoid asking hard questions about how we can all learn to live together without crime and violence.

Any Mars settlement that needs the threat of execution to deter harmful anti-social behavior will already be in big trouble. If we need to the death penalty to keep young girls safe we have already failed miserably at forming a stable healthy functional society. Thus, the widespread use of capital punishment is a confession of weakness.

We kill people like John Wayne Gacy and the Virginia snipers so we can avoid facing the harder questions about how to raise people not to act in those ways.

I shed few tears for many of the vile monsters we execute - - I shed more tears for a society that finds pride or joy in killings its criminals.

Bill White · 2003-11-28 12:42:38

If you wrong someone, you can't really undo it. yeah, the point isn't lost. but you kill someone, well, they're dead. it's never right.
Sometimes it is, at least in my view. Sometimes killing people is the right and moral thing to do.
we have them at a point in time where we don't have to kill them. we do it as a matter of expediancy and as a demonstration... but that just dosen't make any sense, at least not morally.
We never actually have to kill anyone. When some thug attacks you on the street you could shoot him in both knees and elbows to completely incapacitate him... Well, I don't suppose you can in California, but that's a whole other issue Following this logic, it is never moral to kill anyone. Many people subscribe to this and if it works for them, fine. But it seems to me that if executing one murderer or rapist prevents just one murder or rape, either through deterence or guaranteeing that this individual can never repeat his crime; it's worth it.

Cobra - did you ever watch the movie Minority Report? or read Phillip Dick's original book? In the hands of less than trustworthy people, this power you speak of is capable of serious abuse. IMHO, the criminal justice system can be too easily perverted to a tool of social domination with critics dismissed as "bleeding heart" cry-babies.

And yes, it is NEVER moral to kill anyone, ever. But sometimes killing someone is the LESSER evil of the choices available. Thus, the truly moral person may, on occasion, be morally compelled to kill someone.

Palomar · 2003-11-28 12:42:56

=IF= killing someone who threatens your existence truly is the =ONLY= means available for your survival =THEN= I have no problem with capital punishment. Back to the Das Boot example - - had here been no chloroform available (or other non lethal means) the skipper would not only have the right to shoot the crazed sailor, I believe he would have the moral obligation to shoot the crazed sailor.
In real life however, capital punishment all too often relied upon as a lazy way to avoid asking hard questions about how we can all learn to live together without crime and violence.
Any Mars settlement that needs the threat of execution to deter harmful anti-social behavior will already be in big trouble. If we need to the death penalty to keep young girls safe we have already failed miserably at forming a stable healthy functional society. Thus, the widespread use of capital punishment is a confession of weakness.
We kill people like John Wayne Gacy and the Virginia snipers so we can avoid facing the harder questions about how to raise people not to act in those ways.
I shed few tears for many of the vile monsters we execute - - I shed more tears for a society that finds pride or joy in killings its criminals.

*Bill: A wonderful post. Very eloquent, especially "Any Mars settlement that needs the threat of execution to deter harmful anti-social behavior will already be in big trouble." I also agree with your "Das Boot" example, and your sentiments that capital punishment is a confession of weakness and also a "convenient" way of avoiding dealing with societal issues.

As for violence: It seems some people simply are violent, even very violent as personality and temperament go. Compare Jeffrey Dahmer to his brother. Both had the same parents, lived in the same home, etc. One liked to kill men and boys, dismember and eat them...the other is a quiet family man and hard worker who has no violent inclinations whatsoever (and who has subsequently legally changed his last name and moved far away from WI, last I heard). I know this could quickly swerve into a "nature versus nuture" discussion (and frankly, I'm not interested in pursuing that particular hairball). How do we explain the differences between the two Dahmer brothers?

If Mars does become colonized, sooner or later a Marquis de Sade or Dahmer or Gacy will be born among the populace. They'll have to deal with this; not all of it can be entirely a fault or wrongdoing in society per se, but rather it certainly (to me, anyway) seems to be something in human nature which finds extreme expression in certain people -- a desire to maim, kill, wreak havoc, terrify, control and dominant which some humans seem to have a lot more of than others. If it's "simply" a matter of insanity (violent psychosis)...that will eventually pop up as a matter to be handled on Mars as well, as the population grows.

I also agree with the last line in your post.

--Cindy

Hazer · 2003-11-28 15:31:41

In real life however, capital punishment all too often relied upon as a lazy way to avoid asking hard questions about how we can all learn to live together without crime and violence.
Any Mars settlement that needs the threat of execution to deter harmful anti-social behavior will already be in big trouble. If we need to the death penalty to keep young girls safe we have already failed miserably at forming a stable healthy functional society. Thus, the widespread use of capital punishment is a confession of weakness.
We kill people like John Wayne Gacy and the Virginia snipers so we can avoid facing the harder questions about how to raise people not to act in those ways.
I shed few tears for many of the vile monsters we execute - - I shed more tears for a society that finds pride or joy in killings its criminals.

I suppose that's it really.
Will any future Martian society really be any better then we are? Will Martians be somehow immune to hate and loathing? Will they be able to resist lust & selfishness? I hope so, but something tells me they will be a product of our society, and therein lies their weakness. Ultimately, they will be as human as we are.

Bravo Bill, bravo.

Cobra Commander · 2003-11-28 21:44:12

Any Mars settlement that needs the threat of execution to deter harmful anti-social behavior will already be in big trouble. If we need to the death penalty to keep young girls safe we have already failed miserably at forming a stable healthy functional society. Thus, the widespread use of capital punishment is a confession of weakness.

The same point could be made for police, or even laws for that matter. Any human society will have murderes, rapists, thieves and other assorted trash. Their numbers can be minimized but not entirely prevented. If we can prove conclusively the guilt of the person in question then execution is a more practical and efficient method of keeping the offender away from the general population.

Cobra - did you ever watch the movie Minority Report? or read Phillip Dick's original book? In the hands of less than trustworthy people, this power you speak of is capable of serious abuse. IMHO, the criminal justice system can be too easily perverted to a tool of social domination with critics dismissed as "bleeding heart" cry-babies.

Of course the system can be abused, but does this mean we shouldn't have it? If the law can be perverted should it be discarded? Any law can be twisted and abused by those in power, should we then make all punishments so minor that the abuse isn't so destructive?

If the law is simple and clear and the burden of proof is met, the distinction between prison time, execution or massive fines is really academic and a matter of personal preference. Maybe the penalty for murder should be a $1,000,000 fine. No, why not? It would destroy most lives just as well as a decade in prison. Is either of these punishments more just than death, and if so isn't the implication that the victim's life has less value than that of the offender?

We don't need to relish our execution of criminals, we should be troubled that such a course is needed, but that does not mean the course should be avoided. Not to say that an excution should be painless and humane, assuming again that the crime warrants such treatment and guilt has been proven without question.

I would prefer a world in which we never have the sorts of crime that would warrant excution, but when a heinous crime is committed I would happily subject the offender to pain the likes of which even God has not concieved. Sometimes directed brutality is beneficial to society.

Josh Cryer · 2003-11-29 02:04:28

Statist bastards.

clark · 2003-11-29 10:15:03

Interesting thing about the psychological profile of a criminal- they never think about the punishment associated with the crime, they think about the chances of being caught. A very subtle difference, but a very profound one. If you can understand this viewpoint, then the death penalty has no effect on the crime rate- which multiple studies conclude.

The point at where we can use the death penalty on someone, they are already removed from society. What's the point?

The death penalty dosen't make sense becuase it dosen't reduce crime, and it dosen't disuade people from certain crimes. It creates more problems that it solves.

Rxke · 2003-11-29 11:26:18

Something that popped up in my mind, just now:
(I'll explain it a bit Black-White, too tired to search after the right English terms, but i hope you'll get the picture...)

On earth, judges and doctors check if the murderer is sane, in most cases when he's 'crazy' and not 'capable' of understanding he did wrong, he's put in an asylum; Not executed.

Now on Mars... The biggest 'pro' arguments for capital punishment is "letting 'em live is too costly or too dangerous, sending 'em back also too costly or impractical"

But a 'lunatic' is at least as costly and dangerous...
What to do in such a case?

Cobra Commander · 2003-11-29 11:55:06

Now on Mars... The biggest 'pro' arguments for capital punishment is "letting 'em live is too costly or too dangerous, sending 'em back also too costly or impractical"
But a 'lunatic' is at least as costly and dangerous...
What to do in such a case?

A violent lunatic is dangerous, unpredicable and incapable of being deterred. Elimination is the clearest, safest course. Harsh, but true.

Interesting thing about the psychological profile of a criminal- they never think about the punishment associated with the crime, they think about the chances of being caught. A very subtle difference, but a very profound one. If you can understand this viewpoint, then the death penalty has no effect on the crime rate- which multiple studies conclude.

For premeditated crimes the death penalty has been documented in some studies to have a small effect on violent crime. But many such crimes are spur-of-the-moment crimes. Crimes of passion or opportunity which cannot be deterred because there is little or no reasoned thought process behind them, almost a sort of momentary insanity. One who meticulously plans a murder and is caught can be convinced not to repeat it, one who acts solely out of rage or base instinct can't be deterred. With the choice between execution or life in prison, execution seems the more rational and expedient option.

The death penalty dosen't make sense becuase it dosen't reduce crime, and it dosen't disuade people from certain crimes. It creates more problems that it solves.

Again, this same argument could be made for drug laws, gun laws, speed limits and a host of other things. What's the point of any of it?

That anarchy thing is starting to look real good

A.J.Armitage · 2003-12-01 02:24:43

Bill White;

If execution is used as a way to avoid the hard questions of how to become Utopia, count me in even more for executions.

When people seriously attempt to create a perfect society is when you start getting real death tolls.

clark · 2003-12-01 10:14:47

A violent lunatic is dangerous, unpredicable and incapable of being deterred.

Now add: in jail.

What and where is the danger in any violent person when they are removed from society? Now death is but one form of 'removing' some individual from society. They are dead, so now we don't have to worry about them. Now we have time to worry about who is going to win the next Pennant, or the Superbowl ring. See how clean the whites are now? See how we are no longer burdened with the worry that some deranged criminal, now dead, can't escape from solitary confinement. Yes, a much better world to raise all our children, without this worry to contend with.

I will grant anyone the right to use whatever force is neccessary to protect life and limb. If you are attacked, you must defend yourself. The same way that a soldier must kill the enemy shooting at him. But do we want our soldiers shooting those enemy soldiers that have stopped shooting? I know Cobra might- afterall, it's a hard world, and we can make it a little easier by killing a few more of those who don't agree with us while we can... but of course I am joking, and Cobra, well, he can tell us what he thinks...

The point though is that the death penalty isn't worth it if we know innocent people are being killed. They are. We allowed the wrong people to be condemned to death. To die. Locking them up forever isn't plesant, and those that are incorrectly incarcerated are forever wronged- but at least an opportunity exsists for us to undo, in whatever amount, the wrong that was done to an innocent individual.

Democracy itself holds that all individuals are equal- yet we willingly allow the group, the mob, to exact it's pound of flesh from one individual. To take their eye for another eye.

That's not justice, and that's not equality. If the death penalty dosen't reduce crime in any real amount, why do it? What's the point?

. With the choice between execution or life in prison, execution seems the more rational and expedient option.

We each have a life sentence, with execution guareenteed at the end. So why do we keep going on? Whether you or I would prefer or not prefer to wither in a jailhouse, it's shouldn't be our choice. If those condemned to life in a little prison cell want death, let them do it themselves. Either way, this person isn't a threat to us if they are in jail. Unless you can show how a criminal behind bars is a threat to society, I think those on the other side of this argument are just making exscuses.

Palomar · 2003-12-01 11:17:04

Bill White;
If execution is used as a way to avoid the hard questions of how to become Utopia, count me in even more for executions.
When people seriously attempt to create a perfect society is when you start getting real death tolls.

*So you are saying persons opposed to capital punishment are Utopians or seekers of a perfect society? If so, then IMO that's a flawed and overly simplistic attitude.

--Cindy

A.J.Armitage · 2003-12-03 02:12:18

ecrasez_l_infame;

No, I'm saying Bill White is a utopian.

Bill White · 2003-12-03 09:26:03

ecrasez_l_infame;
No, I'm saying Bill White is a utopian.

Well, maybe, in the far far distant future. In the short term, utopian ideas have a tendency to backfire, casing more harm than good.

Its funny though, others think I am too cynical.

My reluctance to favor capital punishment (yet, never say never) comes from a desire not to become a monster during our efforts to battle monsters. There are times where killing another is not only right, it is necessary, see the Das Boot example. However, IMHO, it is both weak-minded and lazy to resort to routine capital punishment as a matter societal convenience.

Capital punishment may be necessary from time to time but it should never be routine or convenient.

clark · 2003-12-03 12:23:14

When would/should capital punishment be neccessary? What circumstances require the extra step, beyond just removing someone from harming anyone else in society, to ending their life so there is no chance that they might harm society?

Bill White · 2003-12-03 13:22:21

When would/should capital punishment be neccessary? What circumstances require the extra step, beyond just removing someone from harming anyone else in society, to ending their life so there is no chance that they might harm society?

When the means are lacking to neutralize the threat any other way. Like I said, the use of capital punishment is a confession of weakness, not of strength.

The idea has a Jesuit flavor - IMHO - wherein freedom is defined as "having the power to do what is right"

If the spirit is willing but the flesh weak, that person is NOT free.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2003-11-26 15:34:44

Re: Crime and Punishment - Speculation

#27 2003-11-26 16:23:21

Re: Crime and Punishment - Speculation

#28 2003-11-26 19:08:50

Re: Crime and Punishment - Speculation

#29 2003-11-26 19:56:48

Re: Crime and Punishment - Speculation

#30 2003-11-26 20:06:22

Re: Crime and Punishment - Speculation

#31 2003-11-26 21:25:13

Re: Crime and Punishment - Speculation

#32 2003-11-27 01:47:04

Re: Crime and Punishment - Speculation

#33 2003-11-27 05:23:39

Re: Crime and Punishment - Speculation

#34 2003-11-27 23:08:47

Re: Crime and Punishment - Speculation

#35 2003-11-28 12:15:27

Re: Crime and Punishment - Speculation

#36 2003-11-28 12:42:38

Re: Crime and Punishment - Speculation

#37 2003-11-28 12:42:56

Re: Crime and Punishment - Speculation

#38 2003-11-28 15:31:41

Re: Crime and Punishment - Speculation

#39 2003-11-28 21:44:12

Re: Crime and Punishment - Speculation

#40 2003-11-29 02:04:28

Re: Crime and Punishment - Speculation

#41 2003-11-29 10:15:03

Re: Crime and Punishment - Speculation

#42 2003-11-29 11:26:18

Re: Crime and Punishment - Speculation

#43 2003-11-29 11:55:06

Re: Crime and Punishment - Speculation

#44 2003-12-01 02:24:43

Re: Crime and Punishment - Speculation

#45 2003-12-01 10:14:47

Re: Crime and Punishment - Speculation

#46 2003-12-01 11:17:04

Re: Crime and Punishment - Speculation

#47 2003-12-03 02:12:18

Re: Crime and Punishment - Speculation

#48 2003-12-03 09:26:03

Re: Crime and Punishment - Speculation

#49 2003-12-03 12:23:14

Re: Crime and Punishment - Speculation

#50 2003-12-03 13:22:21

Re: Crime and Punishment - Speculation

Board footer