Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

PeterJ · 2004-11-12 21:15:07

I see where you're coming from here, but there's a problem: This argument is essentially saying "we can't build an unarmed society, but we'll try to anyway." It acknowledges basic realities then refuses to conform to them, it's rather odd.

The point i was trying to make was that we should try in earnest to create a peacefull society but i was acknowedging my sometimes pessimistic attitude that due to human nature might be impossible. But we should do everything we can :up:

And on capital punishment i have absolutely no doubts that when a person knowlinging goes out with the intent to murder another human being for reasons of only death that that person has forfeited their rights as a human being by taking another persons.

p.s i didnt intent that to sound angry i was stating my opinion and im not always pessimist, theres always a chance that we could succeed 100% in what we try to do.

Morris · 2004-11-15 23:46:53

You end up providing the exscuses by which real monsters kill women for adultery. or beheading civilians. Or flying planes into towers.
If I accept that the death penalty is legitiamte, than I am forced to accept the actions of terroists as acceptable since they justify their actions by the very basis of your argument. Don't you see that Morris?

Hay-zeus? Isn't he that guy who preached about love and tolerance? Was he before or after those tablets from god?

Yes, and also said, "I come not to bring peace but a sword".

Okay, but the question remains, why do we need to kill a person who no longer poses an immediate threat to society?

In the case of murderers, because they took from their victims the same sanctity and potentiality of life which most of them and their anti-capital punishment advocates use as an argument for preserving their own life.

If we're going to build a foundation on evolutionary theory here, shouldn't we address the children of those who commit murder?

Yep, evolutionary action is statistical in nature. Young males are much more likely to commit violent crimes than other groups. It doesn't take much of a statistical differential to have a big effect over generations.

The death penalty is used as a means to "control" behavior- permanently. Look, no penalty is going to deter a person from a commiting a crime they are intent on commiting. The evaluation is always based on the ability to get away with the crime, not with the punishment associated with the crime.
It's just about true for all crime and for all people who commit any kind of crime- be it speeding, jay-walking, cheating on their spouse, incest, rape, not paying taxes, or murder.

You seem to think that deterrence is the primary reason for punishment, whereas it is, in fact, only one of many factors. My argument is based on moral reciprocity as the foundation for justice. For example, while I am no expert on the literature of crime and punishment, I have heard that punishments which have a foundation in restitution tend to be somewhat more effective in reducing recidivism than those which do not.

The principle of restitution is fundamentally consistent with reciprocity principles. However, many crimes, and homicide most of all, generate an injury which can never be healed, either ever by anyone as in the case of homicide, or by any future action of the perpetrator (as in the case of permanent physical injury or many financial crimes). In these cases, the punishment should have a comparable impact on the lives of the perpetrators as on the victims. In the case of first degree murder the only comparable effect is the surrender of their own life.

If you accept the death penalty for a crime, then you accept the death penalty for all crimes.

???? This violates the common experience of justice in almost every country in the world. Can you name a country where the penalty for all crimes is death?

It's just a subjective test to determine when and where it is culturaly acceptable.

Actually, reciprocity principles provide the basis for a relatively non-subjective implementation of moral principles. In fact, thinkers such as Georg von Wright contend that ethics is fundamentally more conceptual like mathematics than empirical, like physics or chemistry. I don't agree, but their arguments must be taken seriously.

Morris · 2004-11-16 00:19:40

.

My religious faith requires me to accept that I am my brother's keeper and while I cannot save all of my siblings, I am not permitted to abandon hope for any of them. Ever.

What hopes are you not permitted to abandon? It is one thing not to abandon the hope that a criminal may truly come to sincerely regret her action and to become a better person, it is another to abandon the hope that a murderer can restore his victim to life. Yet justice based on reciprocity would seem to dictate that the fact that the murderer denied his victim(s) the ability to become better persons and all the other things that life implies should have a morally higher status in determining punishment than the hope that the perpetrator will come to sincerely regret what he has done.

I am less than confident of our ability to discern those cases with rationality and impartiality, but that is beside the point

I share your concern, especially in a justice system like ours which is based on an inferior conceptual structure which is not in keeping with the potential for improved justice provided by modern science. Certainly the horrors of the proved wrongful capital convictions in Illinois should give us pause. On the other hand, there are cases in which there is essentially no doubt of guilt.

Question - - would you have any qualms about your child marrying an exeuctioner? That the hands which killed a man at 12:01 a.m. were two hours later caressing your grandchild?

No problem at all, if the executioner where a man who did his job honorably and justly. Neither would have any qualms about my daughter marrying a soldier.

BWhite · 2004-11-16 09:40:57

Executioners are not soldiers.

Do many criminals "deserve" to be executed? Sure. But that is not the end of the discussion it is only the beginning.

I hope we all agree that the State should not execute those who do not "deserve" to be executed. Thus, we start with a subset of humanity being those who "deserve" execution.

Should we execute everyone who "deserves" it or only some of those who "deserve" it?

= = =

Remember, every Sunday in Church people pray that God NOT give us what we deserve. The essence of Christianity is that people do not get what they deserve, they get more than they deserve. And how can I refuse to show mercy and then ask for mercy myself?

Therefore, we only execute when it is the ONLY option for self preservation. When it is necessary, not because the criminal deserves it.

BWhite · 2004-11-16 09:48:28

And on capital punishment i have absolutely no doubts that when a person knowlinging goes out with the intent to murder another human being for reasons of only death that that person has forfeited their rights as a human being by taking another persons.

I agree that such people "deserve" execution, provided we can be certain of our judgments. We may disagree on how certain we should be of our own judgment and rationality but that is another question.

Therefore, let us assume criminal X "deserves" execution for the reasons you give. Fair enough.

Seems to me this is merely the first step of the analysis and not the last as I surely hope you do not advocate execution of those who do not deserve execution.

Now we have a pool of criminals (x% of the species) we all agree deserve execution. How does our analysis proceed from here? Which receive execution and which do not. Why?

PeterJ · 2004-11-16 16:01:59

Now we have a pool of criminals (x% of the species) we all agree deserve execution. How does our analysis proceed from here? Which receive execution and which do not. Why?

Well i believe only criminals who commit the harshest of crimes and who we are close to 100% without a doubt sure they are guilty should die.

examples: Serial killers, genocide, multiple repeated rapings and paedophilia, excessive repeated grievous bodily harm (for instance when a gang member goes out an paralyses a person and than does so again a few weeks after getting released from jail.)

all i can think of right now

Morris · 2004-11-16 23:25:44

Executioners are not soldiers.

Sometimes they are and sometimes they are not. Executioners and soldiers are overlapping classes. In any event, my point is that both are proper instruments of the state and in both cases homicide according to a specified set of rules is legitimate. Ditto for police officers.

Should we execute everyone who "deserves" it or only some of those who "deserve" it?

Most but not all. Mercy might be granted, for example, if the family of the VICTIM requests it for some reason. But that is only an example. The violation of the sanctity of persons with no families is just as bad as that of those who have families to represent them so someone, in this case a representative of the state, must speak for them. And this representative must grant mercy only for very clear and compelling reasons, e.g. the perpetrator had saved one or more lives prior to the murder, the perpetrator was delusional when the murder was committed and actually thought he was acting in self-defense, etc.

Remember, every Sunday in Church people pray that God NOT give us what we deserve. The essence of Christianity is that people do not get what they deserve, they get more than they deserve. And how can I refuse to show mercy and then ask for mercy myself?

It depends on the offense. The less the injury and the more ways of compensating the victim in particular and the society as a whole for the injury, the more mercy becomes a reasonable option. It is the particular nature of murder that no compensation to the victim is possible and therefore mercy must be very nearly impossible.

BWhite · 2004-11-16 23:40:01

. . .my point is that both are proper instruments of the state. . .

And my point is that for the "State" to assert such authority is deeply and profoundly immoral and unjust except in cases of necessity related to actual self defense, not self defense "after the fact" after a real threat has been neutralized.

The Declaration of Independence asserts quite plainly that human rights arise from higher and more sublime source than what begins and ends with "the State" - - to reject the Declaration of Independece is to reject the founding document of our Nation.

Also, Christians must renounce ALL right to revenge to remain Christian, IMHO. Revenge and legitimate self defense being entirely different things.

= = =

Granting mercy is for the sake of us not the criminal. We lessen ourselves by inflicting capital punishment absent true necessaity.

And I do not wish to be morally diminished.

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-17 06:32:35

It seems we're missing something here. All the anti-capital punishment arguments put forth hinge on "necessity". Alright, fair enough. In that case not only is capital punishment morally wrong but so is the foundation of our entire justice system. You kill someone, you go to prison. Rape, go to prison. Steal? Prison. Is it necessary that we send people to prison for tax evasion, drug possesison or sending spam emails? To argue that the death penalty for truly heinous crimes is immoral while accepting the practice of imprisoning non-dangerous people for commiting non-violent or even malum prohibitum BS crimes is rather nonsensical.

We imprison many for crimes which hurt no one but the offender, we use imprisonment in still more cases where it is not only expensive overkill but morally repugnant for the crime in question, yet when faced with serial murderers and rapists we have a moral obligation to them? Take their property, take their liberty but for the love of humanity don't kill them? It would be morally wrong for us to kill this man who has killed others? It seems that morality is quite subjective.

Palomar · 2004-11-17 07:58:11

*As for capital punishment, I'd have to say I'm opposed to it. It seems wrong to be "the killer of killers." But that's not to say I have any great love for people like Susan Smith or Scott Peterson. There's a part of me which would like to see her strapped into a car that's pushed into a deep body of water to drown (on Mother's Day no less) just like she did to her kids; or to weight Scott Peterson down and toss him off a boat (on Father's Day no less) to let him drown like his wife and baby son did. But that's my baser nature speaking (we all have it), and two wrongs don't make a right.

What do we do with people like Jeffrey Dahmer, Ed Gein? Sure, they're both now deceased (the former murdered, the latter died of natural causes)...but unlike Smith and Peterson (cold-hearted, calculating, premeditated murderers), Dahmer and Gein were certifiably mentally ill. (::edit:: And actually it's somewhat unfortunate that Dahmer was killed in prison; he was willing to cooperate with researchers, psychiatrists and etc., who might have made some additional discoveries/insights about pathological human behavior and the psyches of serial killers).

As for prisoners, I don't think they should be eating food which is better in quality than what our soldiers in the armed forces eat. Give them quality food, sure, and chances for education. And make them work hard, etc.

I know some folks bring up the "brother's keeper" issue. Well, some people just don't want to be "kept." They'll simply take advantage repeatedly and abuse goodwill and kindness. That's not to say we shouldn't have goodwill or be kind, but just be aware of the fact that lots of folks in prison DON'T CARE about anything but themselves. Like a relative of mine said, lots of murderers and rapists never shed a tear for their victim or the victim's family but when sentencing rolls around they're bawling out their eyes for themselves.

Also, it seems too often the victim and the victim's family gets lost in the shuffle. The perpetrator/criminal somehow becomes "more important." This is wrong.

I don't believe criminals should have rights to sell their stories for profit. Any proceeds from their "story" should go to the victims' family. And media attention should be kept minimal. It makes me sick to see murders parading and strutting around in front of cameras, "ooh, look, I'm a celebrity now!" Some of them are even quoted as bragging about the attention they're getting.

Reminds me of the Matthew Shepard case; one of his assailants strutting in front of the cameras (I saw this myself), winking and blowing kisses to someone off-camera; his girlfriend, I guess. A local murder case in my area prompted one of the perpetrators to brag that he was now more famous than some other creep who committed a similar crime. This is odious.

I say give them decent food, shelter, a chance to rehabilitate themselves via education...and make them work hard. No luxury stuff like cable TV; 3 channels and PBS is enough. Etc.

There's only so much we're obligated to do for the "sheep who went astray." They sure feel no obligation to society or anyone but themselves.

--Cindy

P.S.: To sum it up, we shouldn't go down to their level...but on the other hand we shouldn't go into all sorts of hand-wringing bleeding-heart hangups which only serves, in the long run, to allow criminals to exploit goodwill and take advantage for their own gain (and return the favor with a spit in society's eye).

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-17 08:56:05

Mulling this over a bit more, it's easy to say "murderers should be killed" or that it's "immoral" to kill anyone, but as usual reality is somewhat more complex.

First, there are different kinds of murder. I'm not referring to the three degrees precisely, though they do factor in, but rather what motivated the murder. Sometimes it's just some human debris that wants to kill someone, no real reason. Sometimes there are rational, traceable motivations that make a person plan and carry out a murder. Sometimes it's a crime of passion, a category with all sorts of possible motivators. They aren't all the same, I'd gladly send to death someone who grabbed some poor shmuck off the street and knifed him for his wallet, I'd give a much lighter sentence to... say a man who's wife was raped who then hunted down and killed the rapist. They are radically different crimes. The first guy is dangerous to society, the second isn't. The act of murder is only part of the equation that should be considered when passing sentence. To ignore that is far more immoral than to kill the most heinous offenders.

Further, there are different mindsets. Some are cold-blooded killers knowing full well what they're doing, lacking any remorse and killing for the sheer joy of it. On the other end we have mentally ill/defective people who don't understand what they're doing. Both are dangerous, neither can be "cured" in any meaningful sense, though if they could it opens up a slew of new moral arguments. Yet even some of those who would execute the cold-blooded killer have reservations about killing the murderer who doesn't understand murder on some murky moral grounds.

Well, we kill things that don't understand their predicament all the time. We have an entire industry that slaughters large, uncomprehending mammals who have committed no crime.

A bit facetious, but worth considering. What's the moral difference between a rabid bull and a psychopath? Mere "humanity" is an empty argument, we're not so special as we like to think. Both are dangerous to all around them, neither can be "reformed" and made productive. We kill the bull without a second thought, but because the other dangerous animal comes in a man-shape we have to fall all over ourselves to justify it? What, no one wants to eat a murderer and they have thumbs so we have to grant them some exalted status, despite their own lack of reciprocity?

Compromise: If we goad a murderer into attacking then kill him "in self defense" is that moral?

Palomar · 2004-11-17 09:22:27

Well, we kill things that don't understand their predicament all the time. We have an entire industry that slaughters large, uncomprehending mammals who have committed no crime.
A bit facetious, but worth considering. What's the moral difference between a rabid bull and a psychopath? Mere "humanity" is an empty argument, we're not so special as we like to think. Both are dangerous to all around them, neither can be "reformed" and made productive. We kill the bull without a second thought, but because the other dangerous animal comes in a man-shape we have to fall all over ourselves to justify it? What, no one wants to eat a murderer and they have thumbs so we have to grant them some exalted status, despite their own lack of reciprocity?

*But if we don't "take the higher ground" somewhat with respect to criminals, it serves as an undesirable "red flag" of sorts across the societal spectrum, it seems. Capital punishment and hanging up the corpses of criminals to rot in public didn't stop crime in England centuries ago; if anything, the criminals became more brazen and soon the English authorities were looking for places to ship the criminals off to.

It seems in order for civilization to protect itself in the long-run, others who aren't disposed to violence and murder, etc., must take "the higher road" to some extent with hardened criminals. If we went down to their level and didn't maintain some sort of checks and balances system, it'd become a free-for-all including mob "justice" (I wonder how many truly innocent yet socially "undesireable" people have been victims of that) and vigilanteeism, etc.

Doesn't seem fair (who says life is), but to some extent the rabble of society do have us "over a barrel." We either try and deal with them in a way which ultimately serves to preserve our integrity and the health of our society or we simply don't care...like them...and then we're all in trouble.

It's like petty antagonisms in some every-day life situations: If someone wrongs you, they'll take offense if you react -- even if they started it and your reaction is natural. The situation can often escalate out of control if both parties allow it, and almost all of the time the perpetrator doesn't care. You're supposed to "take it" apparently; react and then they react even more to the point of fisticuffs or verbal assault. Sometimes non-action (Taoist Yin, not to be confused with cheek-turning) is the wisest option, or trying to find an intelligent way of diffusing the situation. That, on a much larger level, is what we face when dealing with criminal behavior and etc. Cooler heads will prevail.

Maybe I'm incorrect (though I doubt it, based on my own life's experiences), but just some additional thoughts.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-17 09:32:17

If we went down to their level and didn't maintain some sort of checks and balances system, it'd become a free-for-all including mob "justice" (I wonder how many truly innocent yet socially "undesireable" people have been victims of that) and vigilanteeism, etc.

The converse of that is that if we deal with criminals in too soft a manner we also encourage vigilanteism.

BWhite · 2004-11-17 10:40:13

If we went down to their level and didn't maintain some sort of checks and balances system, it'd become a free-for-all including mob "justice" (I wonder how many truly innocent yet socially "undesireable" people have been victims of that) and vigilanteeism, etc.
The converse of that is that if we deal with criminals in too soft a manner we also encourage vigilanteism.

Its the certainty of punishment not the severity of punishmet that deters crime. Enough police and support amongst the community to assure criminals do not get away.

Solve 50% of the murder cases and execute those convicted criminals means low certainty of punishment and high severity of punishment and that will lead to chaos. Intimidation of witnesses etc. . .

= = =

A disturbing poll I read recently said twice as many Americans now believe violence is an appropriate means to get what you want, compared with the same poll 20 years ago.

In my opinion, routine use of the death penalty encourages the belief that violence solves problems. Especially when political leaders trumpet 'get tough" as the solution to crime.

Get tough? No!

Get efficient and make sure criminals get caught.

However our criminal justice system is so very FUBAR (in part due to staggering numbers of drug prosecutions) that there are no easy solutions while "Get Tough!" is an easy soundbite allowing surburbia to vote and then ignore the problems under the false illusion they have done something.

= = =

PS - - Add the incarcerated in the USA and Europe into the unemployment statistics and our employment rate suddenly stops looking all that much better than EU employment figures.

So much for the American economic model being clearly better than the European model for creating jobs.

clark · 2004-11-17 10:46:10

I am of the opinion that murder is not a form of justice. It is a base form of vengence.

We look for justice as a form of compensation to the wronged, and to a form of retribution to the criminal.

The whole point of incarceration is two fold, to protect society from continued trangressions on the part of the criminal, and to provide the means by which a criminal (if they choose) may make ammends for their crime and renounce their previous actions. If we penalize a person with community service, monetary damages, or the simple act of taking their free time away from them, these issues are served.

Murdering an individual does not protect society since it perpetuates violence against life as a means to maintain control. It does not allow a criminal to make ammends for their crime, it simply takes their life in payment for their crime. It precludes any possibility of them renouncing their previous actions.

I find it odd that most states in the united states and the federal government too, are in unison with third world dictatorships in regards to the use of the death penalty. We even use it for juvenilles, which is used by even more dispicable countries whom we do not wish to liken ourselves.

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-17 11:38:16

Its the certainty of punishment not the severity of punishmet that deters crime.

Provided the punishment is severe enough that its certainty acts as a deterrent. For example if a criminal faces a relatively lax punishment from the state, the victim (or family of the victim) may consider punishing the offender directly. If the state-sanctioned punishments are too lenient and the drive for revenge is strong enough they may choose to do what they wish with the criminal then face the less-than-bowel-wrenching consequences.

Certainty and severity are required.

In my opinion, routine use of the death penalty encourages the belief that violence solves problems.

Let's be honest, in many cases it does. It's not pretty, it's not civilized but when two people have a conflict violence does solve problems. Someone attackes you, you shoot him, problem solved. It's not always the best way to to solve a problem, but it works.

PS - - Add the incarcerated in the USA and Europe into the unemployment statistics and our employment rate suddenly stops looking all that much better than EU employment figures.

Are you comparing the unemployed to criminals!

But seriously, this doesn't really hold up. First, how many of these people are in prison for non-violent, minor BS crimes and would be employed if only they weren't locked in a cage all day?. They can't be factored in. As for violent criminals, we can't classify them as unemployed either because they aren't employable. Who wants to hire a serial rapist? Besides the Hussein regime?

We might as well add the dead to the unemployment rolls. Lazy bastards, won't even get up to look for a job.

Murdering an individual does not protect society since it perpetuates violence against life as a means to maintain control.

As does apprehending offenders and locking them up in a slightly less direct manner. It's all about the use of force to maintain control, only the degree varies.

It precludes any possibility of them renouncing their previous actions.

And this is a primary concern why? Violent criminals have free will too, you can't just accidently rape and kill a dozen women, for example. Does anyone really give a damn if they "renounce their previous actions"? Is the damage somehow repaired if the offender finds Jesus in his cellblock? Of course not, it's all about coddling our own sense of superiority and granting the criminal an indulgence on the public dime.

BWhite · 2004-11-17 11:48:37

PS - - Add the incarcerated in the USA and Europe into the unemployment statistics and our employment rate suddenly stops looking all that much better than EU employment figures.
Are you comparing the unemployed to criminals!
But seriously, this doesn't really hold up. First, how many of these people are in prison for non-violent, minor BS crimes and would be employed if only they weren't locked in a cage all day?.

If people who are not incarcerated cannot find jobs, what jobs will those in jail find, if we stopped incarcerating people for minor BS offenses?

Besides, think of all the jail guards we'd have to lay off.

Yes, I believe the incarcerated should be considered as a significant component of calculating unemployment along with those who have given up looking for work.

Yet it all goes to that old saying about:

Lies, Damn Lies and then statistics

= = =

Severity must match societal norms for appropriateness.

Too severe and corruption will develop among law enforcement officials themselves doing "good kids" a favor.

Along with stuff like "slap on wrist" for powder cocaine and "hard time" for crack cocaine all of which undermines respect for all law and order.

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-17 12:03:49

If people who are not incarcerated cannot find jobs, what jobs will those in jail find, if we stopped incarcerating people for minor BS offenses?

The assumption being that everyone presently unemployed and not in prison wants to find work. We have unemployed who seek a new job, enemployed who just go on the dole for awhile as a little vacation before getting another job (I know many of these type) and finally unemployed who fully intend to stay that way. The same holds true of prison inmates convicted of minor offenses, they can't be classed as a group who would find gainful employment if only there was work any more than non-incarcerated non-working people.

Besides, think of all the jail guards we'd have to lay off.

Jail, or prison? Not the same thing. A large percentage of people in jail for minor offenses do work outside. They get up in their cell, get escorted out to a Department of Corrections owned car, drive to work, put in their day and drive back to lock up. Actually a friend of mine just recently went through this very thing, the latest in a long line.

And still smokes the reefer... so much for "corrections" :hm:

Morris · 2004-11-17 23:30:19

And my point is that for the "State" to assert such authority is deeply and profoundly immoral and unjust except in cases of necessity related to actual self defense, not self defense "after the fact" after a real threat has been neutralized.

And just when has the real threat been neutralized? Certainly not by being imprisoned under current laws in the U.S. The Governor of my state just pardoned a man convicted of murder. The pardon was based on a pastor speaking up for him (our current governor was a pastor before getting into the government business) and not on any new evidence indicating that he might have been innocent of the crime.

And didn't I hear on the news a few weeks ago that a confessed serial killer had been released on procedural grounds? When you start to look around you find an astonishing number of people serving sentences for their second, or even third, homicides (which did not all take place at the same time, as in a gangland killing). No, people who killed someone, served time, and killed someone again.

The Declaration of Independence asserts quite plainly that human rights arise from higher and more sublime source than what begins and ends with "the State" - - to reject the Declaration of Independece is to reject the founding document of our Nation.

I agree with this statement since I am a moral realist (in the philosophical sense). I do not, however, see that this implies that capital punishment is always wrong.

My goodness, few religions have implemented more capital punishment than orthodox Christianity in it's historical purging of "heretics". As for the implementation of the Declaration of Independence in the early US, I'm sure that Judge Parker and Judge Roy Bean saw it in a different light from the one you portray.

Revenge and legitimate self defense being entirely different things.

True indeed. The big question is whether capital punishment is primarily revenge or primarily justice. This is similar to the Christian distinction between "judgement" and "discernment" (as in Jesus' aphorism "Judge not that ye be not judged). Earlier this week I heard a Baptist pastor explain that the aphorism does not mean that it is always wrong to evaluate another person's behavior in "good or bad" terms. Telling whether an act is "good or bad, right or wrong" is a matter of discernment. As this was a brief morning devotional he did not explain what judgement was but the context implies that it is premature evaluation (a failure of discernment) and/or a tendency to want to penalize an action more severely than the occasion warrants. Apropos a previous post, this would also seem to entail a lack of mercy.

I do not believe that capital punishment for murder is revenge. It is a symbol of respect for the sanctity of the lost lives of the victims and an utter rejection of persons who intentionally and "in cold blood" violate it.

BWhite · 2004-11-18 07:29:30

True indeed. The big question is whether capital punishment is primarily revenge or primarily justice.

Justice is the ideal to which we must aspire, not something we are "ever" qualified to measure or dispense.

= = =

If the current system fails to protect society (releasing dangerous criminals) then the system is flawed and the death penalty becomes necessary due to our own prior failures and weakness.

Tell me the death penalty is something we need BECAUSE all of us are flawed creatures (all of us, police and judges and legislators included)and I will say, "Well, okay in limited circumstances, the fewer the better, execution may be the lesser evil of the options presented, but its still evil."

Tell me that execution brings a society closer to justice and I will fight relentlessly.

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-20 12:14:18

If the current system fails to protect society (releasing dangerous criminals) then the system is flawed and the death penalty becomes necessary due to our own prior failures and weakness.

One could argue that the need for any punishment shows the system to be flawed, which brings us back to mere degrees. Death penalty, prison or a swift kick to the backside, all a matter of degrees on a slope of severity.

Tell me that execution brings a society closer to justice and I will fight relentlessly.

Justice cannot be truly achieved after a crime has been committed, certainly not the types of crime I would advocate the death penalty for. Can any punishment to the offender bring "justice" for a victim of murder or rape? Can a grave injustice ever be cancelled out or atoned for? I don't believe so. The closest we can come is to be certain that those who commit grave injustices do not get away with it, and that they suffer for it.

Which in a pure sense means either prison under wretched conditions or painful execution. However, the inherent flaws with our legal system and in our selves (we are neither omnitient nor truly pure of motive) dictates that at some point the punishment would be carried out against an innocent (at least of the crime being punished) which is itself a grave injustice.

A quick and relatively humane death penalty prevents both the criminal from repeating his crimes, and in those rare cases of wrongful conviction one could argue that a quick death is more humane than a life in prison. I know some are going to latch onto this as though I'm now advocating executing innocent people and if that's the best argument you can muster, go for it. But that's the quandry of the whole punishment issue, if we look only at the truly guilty we will in time subject one who is not to whatever horrors we devise for punishment, yet if we focus on the rare conviction of the innocent we create a system hopelessly incapable of fulfilling its purpose of punishing crime.

There is no easy answer and for this very reason to harp on capital punishment as morally beyond the pale seems somewhat contrived. Morally wrong to kill a monster? We do that all the time. Morally wrong to kill an innocent? Certainly, as is sending them to prison for life. You could even argue that allowing an individual who has shown some signs of criminal inclinations to live is immoral as the end result will be a victim of an injustice, the individual in question being punished which itself can be argued is immoral, and we have to carry it out thus "morally diminishing" us all when simply confining the young deviant to a room, or a cage would have spared us all the trouble.

The point being that there are no absolutes here. The death penalty is not an appropriate punishment for tax evasion any more than a fine is appropriate for murder. Whenever we're talking about punishing people for crimes that they almost certainly committed, but might not have we're in a morally murky area to start with. To pick one form of punishment and point to it as too horrible to contemplate using while gladly engaging in the others pretends to honor a distinction that doesn't exist.

And this was supposed to be a short post. :hm:

BWhite · 2004-11-20 12:16:02

Cobra, I'd say we now agree:

Tell me the death penalty is something we need BECAUSE all of us are flawed creatures (all of us, police and judges and legislators included) and I will say, "Well, okay in limited circumstances, the fewer the better, execution may be the lesser evil of the options presented, but its still evil."

Morris · 2004-11-20 15:46:46

Cobra. A really thoughtful and interesting post in general. However, there is one part I must comment on.

A quick and relatively humane death penalty prevents both the criminal from repeating his crimes, and in those rare cases of wrongful conviction one could argue that a quick death is more humane than a life in prison. I know some are going to latch onto this as though I'm now advocating executing innocent people and if that's the best argument you can muster, go for it. But that's the quandry of the whole punishment issue, if we look only at the truly guilty we will in time subject one who is not to whatever horrors we devise for punishment, yet if we focus on the rare conviction of the innocent we create a system hopelessly incapable of fulfilling its purpose of punishing crime.

The accuracy of this statement depends on your definition of rare. Recent analyses of murder convictions by law students revealed such a horrendus scandal in Illinois that even Justice Sandra Day O'Connor commented on the need for higher standards in capital cases.

Fully ten percent of the people on death row were, on review by the students, were proven innocent by the most convincing of hard evidence (e.g. DNA samples and convincing confession of the crime by someone else in a manner consistent with the evidence). In well over half the cases, there was so much doubt that it appeared likely that the prisoner was actually innocent. Some of the most amazing failures to pursue evidence on the part of both the prosecution and the defense were revealed, e.g. apparently never having visited the murder site. If they had, they would have seen that the events described by the prosecution were impossible at that location.

Of course there is no telling how many more were falsely convicted on the basis of traditional procedures and for whom there was no DNA evidence to either prove or disprove their innocence. I have heard lawyers on C-Span start to take the 10 percent figure as a hard and fast rule. They fail to understand that the 10% figure is necessarily the lower bound of the error percentage, which may be much higher.

One of the nastiest features of current criminal jurisprudence is the widespread use of criminals with an interest in the outcome as witnesses in some of these cases. Sixty Minutes once presented a case where a nice young man with an excellent school and conduct record was convicted of a violent crime (it may have been a murder) on the basis of such evidence. He claimed, and presented some evidence to support his claim, that he was at a rock concert at the time of the crime. The heart of the program was a new "brain wave" test which gives a particular response when things are described that a person actually experienced. When this test was used to evaluate the prisoner's experiences at the time of the crime, both of the concert and the crime scene, they uniformly validated his claim that he was at the concert. Why juries will believe the word of a convicted criminal with something to gain by their testimony over a person with a good record is beyond me. Of course, this is only a problem if the accused is poor or a minority. If wealthy and prominent, the judge throws the testimony out (or doesn't allow it to be presented in the first place).

And then there are a variety of biases that judges have. For example, many in the justice system are very skeptical of any evidence based on behavioral science studies regarding the trustworthiness of witnesses' memories and perceptions. This despite the fact that properly done behavioral science studies are just as reliable (and, strange as it may sound, in some cases even more reliable) than evidence from the "hard" sciences.

In one dramatic case, from Australia I believe, a rape victim identified a psychologist as the rapist and was absolutely firm in her conviction that he was the perpretrator. It was shown in court that she was watching the psychologist in a live TV discussion of rape when her rape occurred. His image was burned into her mind as the perpetrator, even though he was not anywhere near her location.

Some months ago a judge in our state would not even allow evidence relating to such distortions to be presented in a criminal case. As far as I am concerned judges, some of whom have very poor or even non-existent scientific qualifications, should be forced to admit all relevant evidence from high quality scientific studies. When it comes to evidence of guilt it is only the relevance and the scientific quality of the evidence which matters and ancient distinctions such as the presumed superiority of "eyewitness" evidence over "circumstantial (non-eyewitness)" evidence should be thrown out completely in a thorough-going revision of the basic legal concepts in the system. (Of course, the most reliable evidence, DNA testing, is circumstantial evidence).

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-20 17:36:49

The accuracy of this statement depends on your definition of rare. Recent analyses of murder convictions by law students revealed such a horrendus scandal in Illinois that even Justice Sandra Day O'Connor commented on the need for higher standards in capital cases.

You raise good points Morris, all a matter for concern. My take on the problem is that we not only have superficial problems with our legal system (slow to adopt new scientific methods of evaluating evidence, for example) but much deeper flaws. For one thing, too many prosecutors look at getting the evidence they need for a conviction rather than determining what actually happened. the same often holds true for the police investigating the crime. Despite what we might have been taught, there is a presumption of guilt.

Further, jury selection is ass-backwards. Defense and prosecution both seek jurors that can be molded to their position rather than independently analysing the evidence, often resulting in less-than-stellar intellects in the jury booth. Just as troubling, it's increasingly seen not as a civic duty but as an expensive pain in the ass to be lied, cheated and swindled out of. I've been in a few courtrooms in my day and the thought of some of these juries, composed of those passive enough to be prone to suggestion and not swift enough to escape the task, passing judgment based on their complete lack of understanding of the evidence is chilling.

Based on this, one can certainly argue that the death penalty should never be allowed as the potential for error is so high. In principle I agree, and would argue the same for prison, confiscation of property and the like. To focus on whether a punishment is too severe (and I know you're not doing this Morris, I'm just stating in general) is to miss the point entirely. Fix the system itself, that should be the focus of our outrage, not to ban a particular instrument of punishment.

I suppose I need to clarify my own point of view here again, I'm not going to get all worked up over a faux-fix patchjob answer. Wrongfully sentencing a man to death is no more unjust than wrongly sentencing him to life in prison, it is the process by which that sentence is reached that must be fixed. If we can be certain of our conclusions, the death penalty is perfectly moral, if we cannot than any punishment cannot be considered just. I don't know exactly how to reform our legal system to meet this standard, I have a few ideas but certainly no ironclad foolproof plan. We have alot of work to do, I just hope we can focus on fixing the real problem.

Hmm, can't seem to get out "rant mode" today.

Morris · 2004-11-21 12:18:36

I suppose I need to clarify my own point of view here again, I'm not going to get all worked up over a faux-fix patchjob answer. Wrongfully sentencing a man to death is no more unjust than wrongly sentencing him to life in prison, it is the process by which that sentence is reached that must be fixed. If we can be certain of our conclusions, the death penalty is perfectly moral, if we cannot than any punishment cannot be considered just. I don't know exactly how to reform our legal system to meet this standard, I have a few ideas but certainly no ironclad foolproof plan. We have alot of work to do, I just hope we can focus on fixing the real problem.

I agree with your conception that one of the greatest needs of our society is a thoroughly revised legal system. This would be one thing in which a Martian settlement could take the lead. I would also like to hear your ideas. While I am sure that an "ironclad, foolproof plan" does not exist, I am equally sure that with fundamental questioning of basic principles, something much better can be developed. There a plenty of people on this forum who, between them, could almost certainly come up with a useful outline.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2004-11-12 21:15:07

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#77 2004-11-15 23:46:53

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#78 2004-11-16 00:19:40

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#79 2004-11-16 09:40:57

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#80 2004-11-16 09:48:28

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#81 2004-11-16 16:01:59

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#82 2004-11-16 23:25:44

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#83 2004-11-16 23:40:01

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#84 2004-11-17 06:32:35

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#85 2004-11-17 07:58:11

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#86 2004-11-17 08:56:05

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#87 2004-11-17 09:22:27

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#88 2004-11-17 09:32:17

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#89 2004-11-17 10:40:13

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#90 2004-11-17 10:46:10

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#91 2004-11-17 11:38:16

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#92 2004-11-17 11:48:37

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#93 2004-11-17 12:03:49

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#94 2004-11-17 23:30:19

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#95 2004-11-18 07:29:30

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#96 2004-11-20 12:14:18

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#97 2004-11-20 12:16:02

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#98 2004-11-20 15:46:46

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#99 2004-11-20 17:36:49

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#100 2004-11-21 12:18:36

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

Board footer