Without the Death Penalty....?

[James R]

Max:

But you're against the death penalty because it's immoral, right?

Not specifically. I'm against the death penalty because it manifestly leads to avoidable injustice. It also doesn't "work" in the sense of achieving many of the aims of sentencing (e.g. deterrence). It is barbaric and an outdated and archaic form of revenge.

But is it moral to hold someone in a small cage for the rest of their lives?

It can be. Sometimes it is the only morally acceptable way to protect the wider society.

Is there a fundamental right not to be locked into a cage and denied freedom for umpty-eleven years or for the rest of their lives?

No. There is a fundamental right not to be arbitarily imprisoned.

But from your position on morality, is it moral in the first place for the state to sentence a person to live in a small cage for life (or whatever time is selected)?

Yes. You do the crime, you do the time.

You deem it immoral to take a person's life, you call it a "fundamental right to life", yet you're perfectly willing to take away his freedom, to lock him in a cage, where he has almost no real life?

You are assuming prisoners have "no real life"? On what basis?

I didn't catch it the first time, James, but I see now that you're being your usual dishonest self in posting responses to the comments of others. Let's examine this a bit. I said: "... And as to life in prison, is it also wrong to lower yourself to the same level as a kidnapper holding a hostage for the rest of their lives? ..." See? Note the words "...same level as....", I didn't say exactly the same as.

So, as is your usual tact when confronted with a difficult question or comment, you used dishonesty to deflect the real issue in the question or comment

Now .......let's explore this issue a little more closely, okay?

Ok. It is not immoral to put somebody in prison who has committed a crime. Imprisonment is unlawful when it is unjustified or arbitrary.

Society has developed from a time where the only punishments were corporal or capital. These days, we aim to rehabilitate offenders as well as to merely punish them, and instead of barbarically killing them. We have dispensed with such barbarities as public executions, public whippings, hangings, cutting off limbs etc. Instead, we give prisoners time to reflect on their crimes, and try to educate and reform them in various ways so that they can rejoin society as useful members.

You're a big one on the fundamental rights of humans, James, and you cite it often in response to issues like this death penalty issue. But, James, freedom is also considered a "fundamental human right" according to the UN.

Which particular convention, declaration or treaty are you referring to? Please quote the relevant sections or articles.

And yet you seem perfectly willing to deny a criminal that fundamental right without so much as a blink of an eye.

Don't be silly. I'm stridently against arbitrary imprisonment, which really is a breach of fundamental rights. Take the right to a fair trial, for example.

And as to the issue of human rights, James, how is it that a state can punish the violations of a basic human right by ...yeah, get this, ...by taking away another person's basic human rights?

They don't do that. I don't think you're very good on the whole issue of rights. Maybe you need to go back to school.

Does the UN declaration suggest that punishment for violation of human rights is the denial of the basic human rights of another individual? Is that part of the UN declaration?

You tell me. A moment ago you referred to that Declaration. Are you now telling me you haven't read it?

 

[Norsefire]

That is completely false - it's a plea to mob mentality. One thousand people shouting "Crucify him! Crucify him!" doesn't mean it is moral to crucify a person.

The problem is that there is no way, aside from the subjective opinions of people, to determine what is moral or what is immoral.

Sure there are. Check out the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for example.

That is a piece of paper. It is not objective.

Like Norsefire, you mistake equality before the law with all people being "the same". It's a basic error you're both making.

I never made that mistake.

What are you rambling on about? Just search for "death penalty" on google and in a couple of clicks you'll find excellent arguments against the death penalty. You make yourself look stupid when you're so obviously not aware of what you're arguing against.

Nonsense. The only good argument against the death penalty is the argument that innocent people have a chance of being executed, and while it is a good one indeed, there are no others. What others are there?

 

[James R]

Norsefire:

He meant that the state takes away their freedom; what gives the state the right to take away their freedom?

Fundamentally, it is due to the criminal's breach of the social contract. This is backed up by law.

If it is the law, then the law can also give the state the right to execute them for their crimes.

I already agreed that the law can do that. Obviously it can. I also made the point quite clearly that what is legal is not necessarily moral. Get it?

In other words, either the state has the right to punish or it doesn't.

The aims of sentencing of criminals include punishment as only one factor. You ought to learn about the others. Can you think of any?

The distinction between life in prison and execution doesn't deserve any merit; it's superficial and meaningless. Both take away a person's life forever, and only your point on the reversibility of life in prison has any weight, and I have already addressed it. If execution is barbaric, then so is life in prison; if life in prison is not, then neither is execution.

Both "take away a person's life forever", you think?

Now, at the risk of getting a glib lie from you, I will ask you directly: if you had committed a serious crime and were given the option of life in prison or execution, which would you choose? Try to be honest, now.

What moral authority do you look to? God? I look to myself for moral authority; and of course you must do the same.

I certainly do not equate moral authority with egoism, as you seem to. Moral authority comes from things like the social contract, backed by the application of reason.

The unjust don't deserve civility and respect; they deserve the ruthlessness that they give to others.

No. That's just sinking to their level.

Because I would want the same respect given to my life.

Are you a murderer or a child rapist?

No. Why is that relevant?

 

[James R]

Norsefire:

The problem is that there is no way, aside from the subjective opinions of people, to determine what is moral or what is immoral.

That's a misleading statement, because by and large people agree on matters of morality. That's about as objective as you can get.

Sure there are. Check out the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for example.

That is a piece of paper. It is not objective.

It is the balance of opinion of the people of most nations of the world. It is about as objective as you can get.

The only good argument against the death penalty is the argument that innocent people have a chance of being executed, and while it is a good one indeed, there are no others. What others are there?

I'll leave it to you to research the arguments. They aren't hard to find. I'm sick of doing all your work for you.

I challenge you to go and find some other arguments against the death penalty, to post them here, and to refute them. That will at least prove you've put in the bare minimum effort to find out what you're talking about.

 

[Norsefire]

Norsefire:

Fundamentally, it is due to the criminal's breach of the social contract. This is backed up by law.

Technically I don't quite agree with the idea of the 'social contract' as being legitimate, but if we do accept it, then the death penalty is likewise a penalty for the breach of the social contract. However, you agreed with this anyway.

I already agreed that the law can do that. Obviously it can. I also made the point quite clearly that what is legal is not necessarily moral. Get it?

I very much agree that what is legal and allowed in a state is not necessarily moral.

The aims of sentencing of criminals include punishment as only one factor. You ought to learn about the others. Can you think of any?

Rehabilitation, and I agreed with you that we ought to rehabilitate those that earnestly want to make amends; those that don't, for instance the countless in prison that remain a part of criminal gangs, cause riots, and hurt others, need to be executed. Agree?

Now, at the risk of getting a glib lie from you, I will ask you directly: if you had committed a serious crime and were given the option of life in prison or execution, which would you choose? Try to be honest, now.

That depends on what my stay in prison would be like; if it will be somewhat pleasant, then prison. If not (for instance, Supermax solitary confinement), I'd prefer execution. Though the criminal's opinion is irrelevant, anyway.

I certainly do not equate moral authority with egoism, as you seem to. Moral authority comes from things like the social contract, backed by the application of reason.

You are turning my words around. I mean that morality is subjective; it depends on perception. Whether or not that is 'egoism', is altogether another issue, but even the idea that altruism is good is a subjective opinion.

I quite agree that moral authority ought to be from social interactions, backed by reason.

No. That's just sinking to their level.

I don't quite think so; you see, you have to take it into context. The state is responding to a crime, giving an appropriate punishment and determining consequences; the criminal broke the law in the first place. The criminal is at fault, not the state.

No. Why is that relevant?

You have to take it into context.

 

[Norsefire]

Norsefire:

That's a misleading statement, because by and large people agree on matters of morality. That's about as objective as you can get.

People can agree that blue is the most beautiful color, but that doesn't make that statement, that blue is the most beautiful color, a fact.

And you've also just confirmed my idea: that the population will determine, by and large, what is moral and immoral through their moral opinions.

It is the balance of opinion of the people of most nations of the world. It is about as objective as you can get.

Nonsense, to your first statement and to your last. It remains subjective even if 100% of the people agreed on it (which they don't).

I've already explained to you how the UN is politically charged, and how the people within the UN and the people that get active within it do not necessarily reflect any majority. In Europe, when the death penalty was abolished, it was typically done so against the opinions of the majority; take the United Kingdom, for example. Today, though it is no longer a majority opinion, it is still a significant portion of the population that support re-instating the death penalty. I'll provide statistics if you insist.

I'll leave it to you to research the arguments. They aren't hard to find. I'm sick of doing all your work for you.

I already know the arguments, and all of them are emotional appeals and subjective.

I challenge you to go and find some other arguments against the death penalty, to post them here, and to refute them. That will at least prove you've put in the bare minimum effort to find out what you're talking about.

I've already done all of this. I've participated in countless capital punishment threads here, and I created my own ages ago that spanned many, many pages (and in the poll, where over 50 people voted, pro-capital punishment was the majority)

P.S. you also seem to be equating harshness with barbarism, but I think that is unfair and illegitimate as a position to take; we have to be harsh on criminals, in my opinion. Don't break the law.
By the way, the majority of the people in the world support the death penalty 52% to 48% according to the polls, and that demonstrates how the UN is not representative of any majority; not to mention certain countries, like certain European countries, have a stranglehold of power on the UN and they can pass things and say "everyone" voted for it, but that is nonsense.

 

[James R]

Norsefire:

I can't take you seriously. One moment you're arguing for government by an "elite". The next you're the champion of democracy. At the same time you support governments' prerogative to make decisions such as abolishing the death penalty, you rail against those decisions by appeal to a democratic "majority".

I'll leave you alone until you sort out where you really stand on such issues. Right now, you're hopelessly confused.

 

[Syzygys]

I'll leave it to you to research the arguments. They aren't hard to find.

They are. There are basicly 2 types, the stupid ones (well, they are stupid, so don't deserve much attention) and the sadist ones. (they aren't bad just sadist)

I challenge you to find just one good non-sadist argument.

 

[Syzygys]

That is completely false - it's a plea to mob mentality.

It is called majority's rule in a democracy.

One thousand people shouting "Crucify him! Crucify him!" doesn't mean it is moral to crucify a person.

At that time and place, that's what the locals' moral says.

Sure there are. Check out the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for example.

Just because a few people decide to write a "law" that doesn't make it universal or fundamental.

Like Norsefire, you mistake equality before the law with all people being "the same".

I meant fundamental equality. Probably it is in the above mentioned Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

you'll find excellent arguments against the death penalty.

I actually did that once when I was bored and I couldn't find any argument that I haven't heard before or I couldn't defeat in less than 20 secs....

 

[James R]

I challenge you to find just one good non-sadist argument.

I actually did that once when I was bored and I couldn't find any argument that I haven't heard before or I couldn't defeat in less than 20 secs....

Sorry, but I don't believe you. When you convince me that you know what the arguments against the death penalty are, then perhaps I'll engage with you further on this.

 

[madanthonywayne]

lol I didn't just make up the concept of justice. It's been around for a year or two at least.

And one of the oldest concepts in the area of justice is lex talionis, or the punishment should fit the crime. An eye for an eye, a life for a life. Might I cite Immanuel Kant on this subject:

if an offender "has committed murder, he must die. In this case, no possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most miserable life, so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an object of horror in the person of the sufferer)" (Kant 1887, p. 155).
​

BookRags​

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Baron Max]

Norsefire:

I can't take you seriously. One moment you're arguing for government by an "elite". The next you're the champion of democracy. At the same time you support governments' prerogative to make decisions such as abolishing the death penalty, you rail against those decisions by appeal to a democratic "majority".

I'll leave you alone until you sort out where you really stand on such issues. Right now, you're hopelessly confused.

Seems to me you've taken this to a personal level, James. Why? Can't you simply respond to the words on the screen and not to the personality behind the screen-name?

Why does it matter what he's said on some other post on some other forum? What he said here, with regard to this topic, is what should be important.

Can't people argue differently than they might really feel? ...like attorneys who argue cases for their clients even when they know the client is guilty?

Baron Max

 

[Syzygys]

Sorry, but I don't believe you. When you convince me

I have been planning a formal debate on this, but since there is nobody who would fit me on this topic, I might have to debate myself.

Is that against Formal Debate rules?

 

[Syzygys]

Might I cite Immanuel Kant on this subject:

Why, the Bible wasn't good and old enough for you?