|
| Thread: Death penalty yes or no? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 · «PREV |
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted September 28, 2014 10:03 PM |
|
|
Fred:
My point is that no one avoids doing risky things, and that's because they do put some finite price on their own life. People could live safer lives, but they prefer to trade that off against other benefits. Because such tradeoffs are possible, life isn't priceless. For example, if you were to increase your risk of dying tomorrow by 0.00001% for $100, that would probably be a great deal for you, but accepting that deal would require putting a price on your life. And if you don't give all your money to your loved ones so they'd spend it on making themselves as safe as possible, you're putting a price on their life, too.
As for a pound of flesh vs monetary restitution, it's one thing to say that you'd personally prefer the pound of flesh. Perhaps that could be an option. But if someone else prefers monetary restitution instead, they don't have that option, they're given a pound of flesh even if that's not what they want.
Xerox:
Laws against murder impose your morality on others - and there's nothing wrong with that. And there's no real distinction between the moral and the practical. As Ayn Rand said, "The moral is the practical".
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted September 28, 2014 10:07 PM |
|
|
We're not talking about amnesty versus the death penalty here, Sal, we're talking life imprisonment versus the death penalty. It's not a choice between killing them and returning them into society to repeat their crimes. It's a choice about letting them sit in prison, work cheaply, ponder what they did and save us money, versus killing them. If innocent, they have a chance to work on it, appeal, wait until their loved ones or lawyers dig something up, etc. They have hope.
The human vengeance instinct is tough, but overcomable. I'm not claiming to be above it. I'm claiming to understand that it is a flaw. That the wronged side in any conflict tends to take things personally and require a disproportionately large punishment for their opponents is not a matter of debate - there are entire laws written around minimizing the effects of this human tendency.
Hastening a suspect's execution on the insistence of the wronged side only increases the chance of him being condemned while innocent. History books and reports are brimming with examples of this shyte. Getting people used to being appeased with scapegoats and blood leads down a dangerous path.
Besides, life imprisonment is not a walk in the park. In some ways, it's tougher than death through lethal injection. I'm not opposing the death penalty for its mercilessness, but for its finality.
Secondly, huge numbers of people claim bloody vigilante vengeance should anyone harm their close ones, but the vast majority of actual victimized families doesn't do it. For a plethora of reasons, not the least of which being that you'd ruin yourself in the process of taking vengeance, and put your family in an even worse situation. Life without parole wouldn't raise overall public dissent by any noticeable margin.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 28, 2014 10:19 PM |
|
Edited by fred79 at 22:20, 28 Sep 2014.
|
mvassilev said:
My point is that no one avoids doing risky things, and that's because they do put some finite price on their own life. People could live safer lives, but they prefer to trade that off against other benefits. Because such tradeoffs are possible, life isn't priceless. For example, if you were to increase your risk of dying tomorrow by 0.00001% for $100, that would probably be a great deal for you, but accepting that deal would require putting a price on your life. And if you don't give all your money to your loved ones so they'd spend it on making themselves as safe as possible, you're putting a price on their life, too.
As for a pound of flesh vs monetary restitution, it's one thing to say that you'd personally prefer the pound of flesh. Perhaps that could be an option. But if someone else prefers monetary restitution instead, they don't have that option, they're given a pound of flesh even if that's not what they want.
putting a price tag on anything isn't going to solve any problems, is my point. like i said before, it's a complicated matter, which gets even more complicated when you're only trying to fix the delicate little details of the aftermath; and not really focusing on the what's causing the initial problem(s).
we can all discuss the intricate little details until we are blue in the face and our fingers fall off from typing. the source of criminality(which leads to the personal and social issues relating to the different P.O.V.'s regarding judicial punishment/mass social behavior manipulation) is what needs to be focused on. the after-effects are immaterial, in my opinion.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 28, 2014 10:50 PM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
Fred:
My point is that no one avoids doing risky things, and that's because they do put some finite price on their own life. People could live safer lives, but they prefer to trade that off against other benefits. Because such tradeoffs are possible, life isn't priceless. For example, if you were to increase your risk of dying tomorrow by 0.00001% for $100, that would probably be a great deal for you, but accepting that deal would require putting a price on your life. And if you don't give all your money to your loved ones so they'd spend it on making themselves as safe as possible, you're putting a price on their life, too.
As for a pound of flesh vs monetary restitution, it's one thing to say that you'd personally prefer the pound of flesh. Perhaps that could be an option. But if someone else prefers monetary restitution instead, they don't have that option, they're given a pound of flesh even if that's not what they want.
Xerox:
Laws against murder impose your morality on others - and there's nothing wrong with that. And there's no real distinction between the moral and the practical. As Ayn Rand said, "The moral is the practical".
I meant outside of the NAP.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
kayna
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 29, 2014 12:58 AM |
|
|
I dont think the people in our governments really care about righteousness ( or the lack of it ). The way I see them, there are schemers on top, boot lickers only doing their jobs and as the years go on, they are replaced by the next generation. let it go 3 + generations and those schemes transform into habits and customs that we either don't question or justify often with what we were taught by teachers and - or parents, leaving the real schemes often buried to the point where most cannot see them.
The only real question people in power often ask themselves is "how can this serve me?". Simple.
The death penalty... justice versus vengeance... justice is societal and vengeance is personal.
I suppose the death penalty in the Arab world serves to remind everyone of Islam and it's teachings? I suppose the death penalty in India and China is there because those countries are already overpopulated anyways? I suppose the Americans keep the death penalty to promote aggressiveness in their own country, since they are the world's police after all? Can't let their citizens go all peaceful after all.
As for the no death penalty parts of the world, maybe it's to look like they re the good guys? Maybe it's also a subtle suppressing brainwash, can't let their citizens go all hungry and get what they want all the time after all, that would go against the scheme of control.
Just guessing here. Either way, it's funny how every country has a different set of laws, yet they all apply it like they're 100 % right and just. It just proves my opening paragraph.
It also, sadly, kind of give less credit to social justice and more credit to personal vengeance.
PS : If you are victim of a crime and it leaves you unable to work ( or similar ), but the one that busted you up can still give something to the society, your government just might indirectly help the person that busted you up when you sue the guy. Exceptions may apply. JUST SAYING.
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted September 29, 2014 01:22 AM |
|
|
angelito said:
Yes. For predefined specific crimes for sure.
You really think you can "heal" someone who rapes 5 year old girls?
You really think you can "heal" a serial killer?
Yes, I think every living creature on this planet has the right to live. But by committing crimes like those above, you should have forfeited this right.
I can get serial killer death penalty but how is rape punishable by death?
Would it change if I raped you, not your daughter? If yes, why?
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
violent_flower
Promising
Supreme Hero
Almost there.
|
|
posted September 29, 2014 03:44 AM |
|
|
Um, will have to get back to you!
____________
Learn how to duck and weave because I will throw truth at you all day!
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 29, 2014 08:15 AM |
|
|
Fred, what I'm talking about is relevant because it gets at what's bad about crime - it harms the victim. This creates a debt on the part of the criminal. With the death penalty, instead of some semblance of paying off that debt to the family, the criminal is just killed. This makes the family worse off than they would have been under a justice system primarily centered around restitution.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 29, 2014 10:24 AM |
|
|
i understand what you're saying, mvass. i never had a problem understanding the point you were making. i'm just saying that whatever gain or restitution relatives of any victims can get, isn't going to solve the issue creating murderous or otherwise uncivilized behavior; any more than executing criminals will(or NOT executing them, for that matter). it's all after the fact that people are discussing, is my point.
lol, i keep running into this same wall. a thread is created, that brings up a valid issue. people discuss what can be done to remedy the currently existing issue, based on different fronts, without discussing the prevention of the issue in the first place(most of the time, anyway). execution has proven to not solve the ongoing issue of a(somewhat passively-aggressive) violent race. and neither will non-execution. the traits that create the people and circumstances for violent acts to be seen as executable; are a symptom of too many different factors to take into account, to come up with a viable solution BETWEEN execution or not; in regards to the present state of things.
any issue that is in any way, shape, or form, human-related has too many complications and facets that can be argued and counter-argued until the people discussing the subject move on from boredom or frustration with one another. and on and on and on, from one topic to another. almost always discussing the present state, instead of the drastic change needed in human society itself for a better(if somewhat further along) future. i keep getting the feeling that nearly all communication between people is a barely-concealed circle jerk. and i don't think most people are aware of it.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 29, 2014 11:20 AM |
|
|
Quote:
My point is that no one avoids doing risky things, and that's because they do put some finite price on their own life.
And that's why it's too wrong not to correct. Life's value is based on its content, it's the experience that matters not just the length of neuro-biological existence. A completely risk free life in a vault would mean a dull life. Psychologically, to cope with our mortality, we have a tendency to think death is always far away and we'll get away with the risks we take. When a man smokes, he does not make a decisive trade between X years and the joy of smoking, he doesn't really think like that, he hopes he'll slide by. (If his doctor tells him it is certain he'll die when he keeps on smoking, he'll immediately stop.) He is not in an act of putting a price on his own life, he is only mentally avoiding to face the seriousness of a health risk. Not every aspect of life can be understood in terms of finance, reducing every human behavior into some decision of trade is a very limited and inadequate conceptualization to comprehend it in a broader sense.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 29, 2014 06:44 PM |
|
|
Fred:
For simplicity, consider a crime in which the victim doesn't die, e.g. assault. It's bad to be assaulted in general, but it's additionally bad to be assaulted when the justice system isn't based around restitution, because the victim doesn't get compensation that makes up for the crime. There's some amount that the criminal w
could pay to even make the victim indifferent between being beaten up (and getting paid) and nothing happening, and if the would-be victim would be indifferent, then there's no problem because they're not being harmed.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted September 29, 2014 07:48 PM |
|
|
I think the presumption that such things can be quantified is wrong. It's not an objective cost that can be standardized for one thing. For another, there are also indirect debts owed to other individuals and/or society at large that'd have to be paid. If nothing else, it's a completely unrealistic model.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 29, 2014 08:52 PM |
|
|
what cor said. what are they going to do, add it as a kind of insurance? assault insurance, murder insurance, rape insurance? those're amusing ideas. i could almost see this kind of thing happening, if the human race wasn't dead in 100 years(heavily overpopulated, no jobs anywhere, crime rampant). i can see this kind of thing debuting in some movie... 
of course, i know this isn't what you meant, mvass. i'm just being an ass. 
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 29, 2014 09:06 PM |
|
|
Sure, it's difficult to quantify, but it doesn't follow that the correct amount of restitution is therefore $0, which is what it is in a system that doesn't recognize restitution as the central purpose of justice. It's fallacious to say "X is difficult to quantify, so we shouldn't have it", because what you're really saying then is "X is difficult to quantify, therefore 0 is the right amount".
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
VOKIALBG
Honorable
Legendary Hero
First in line
|
|
posted September 29, 2014 11:25 PM |
|
|
No. Any other option is absurd.
____________
|
| |
|
|
