Capital Punishment

[CrashBand]

Why can't they just be locked up? They don't pose any threat there in jail.

I don't see the the confusion class.

[CrashBand]

With the dog analogy. We don't put the dog down because it deserves it, we just don't have a jail for dogs lol.

But animals aren't a great example lol. We slaughter animals on the regular for food.

[CrashBand]

The only reason people think they should be killed is because they are under the illusion that the said person deserves to die.

Because if they were them they would never commit such a heinous crime.

[classthe_king]

But if it would save money, time and resources why not just kill them? They may not deserve to die in some biblical sense but there is clearly something wrong with their thought process and society would be better off with them gone.

[CrashBand]

If you want to kill people to save money, that can be your argument lol. Might as well wipe out africa for resources then.

Yes, there is something wrong with what the are doing. But it's not their fault, as it wasn't their control, that's the crucial point. They don't deserve to be punished. The only reason for punishment is safety of others and deterrence. I disagree society would be better off, because if you were unlucky enough to be them you would be killed lol. I guess that kinda applying the maximin theory from John Rawles.

[classthe_king]

Yeah I would be killed because if I was a murderer who couldn't help but murder then society would be better off without me. And it's just about weighing the pros and cons. Their life is already fucked but what is more important, someone's life in prison or all the resources spent on that person?

[CrashBand]

I think life is intrinsically important. That's why we pump a lot of fucking resources to help people survive.

I don't really see the problem, lol.

The only time I think executing someone may be necessary are cases like Osama, where catching him alive may be extremely hard or dangerous.

[NextEpisode]

If X is found guilty of crime Y, to what degree [Z] should X be “punished”?

(1) Why should X be “punished”?
a. Because X is a danger to society
b. Because X deserves to be punished, e.g. “it is the right thing to do” (moral reasons).

If you agree with (a): What if there is a chance that X is no longer posing a danger to society in 10-20 years?
If you agree with (b): see next question.

(You might come up with other reasons as to “why X should be punished”, but I believe these are the two main standpoints, and the ones – so far – mentioned/reflected in this thread.)

(2) What is the minimum Y to justify Z=”Death Penalty”.
a. For example; is it a “body count”?
.......... (i) X murdered 1 person --> Does this justify “Death penalty”?
.......... (ii) X murdered 2 people --> Does this justify “Death penalty”?
.......... (ii) X murdered 3 people --> Does this justify “Death penalty”?
.......... (ii) X murdered 5 people --> Does this justify “Death penalty”?
.......... (ii) X murdered 10 people --> Does this justify “Death penalty”?
.......... (iii) X murdered 100 people --> Does this justify “Death penalty”?
.......... (iv) X murdered 1000 people --> Does this justify “Death penalty”?
b. Is it the ‘rawness’ of the crime?
c. Is it the ‘intentions’ behind the crime?

(3) To what extent (%) are you willing to accept “false positives”? That is, individuals who did not commit the crime, but are – nonetheless – found guilty. Assuming the penalty is “Death”.
a. 1 out of 10?
b. 1 out of 100?
c. 1 out of 1000?
d. 1 out of 1000000?

We have to accept that, in most cases, evidence isn’t black/white, and that the justice system is not flawless – it is constructed and used by humans.

______________________________________________________________________________

Answering these questions might help you in figuring out "your stance".

[yoda you can call me]

maybe if governments weren't so corrupt and only interested in lining their own pockets, whether that be by invading and murdering innocent people in third world countries or protecting greedy powerful corporations, then we could focus on preventing such atrocities on the streets, because we have the knowledge on why people act like they do now, most of these crimes are preventable, but unfortunately its not where the governments priorities lie.. they're the true psychopaths and real danger to society

[classthe_king]

I think life is intrinsically important. That's why we pump a lot of fucking resources to help people survive.

I don't really see the problem, lol.

The only time I think executing someone may be necessary are cases like Osama, where catching him alive may be extremely hard or dangerous.

Well on a logical level I completely agree with you and I agree that I should feel that preserving a human life if possible is the most important. I just can't find myself caring about a murder's life that would be spent in jail anyway, whether he deserved the punishment or not.

However, I do agree with the post above that our government is incapable of doing the simplest things, let alone deciding who should live and die so I think that's a good argument along with the fact that you might punish someone innocent.

[CrashBand]

Most a determinist, but quantum physics has shown that there are random elements (indeterminism) but this doesn't create any room for free will.

--

@Class, yeah I think that's EminemBase's stance on it. How can we give the govt. power to decide who is worth killing, and also the irony of it all (kill people to deter killing).

[CrashBand]

Determinism isn't fatalism though, don't get that confused.

Determinism is just cause-and effect really. There are also indeterministic elements from quantum physics though.

[CrashBand]

Yeah, you got it. That's the difference.

It's pretty much the laws of physics that are the constraints for determinism. However quantum physics is more like "given a, fucking anything can happen".

That being said, there's no free-will. I feel like I'm beating a dead horse with this subject and boring people though.

--

I just can't find myself caring about a murder's life that would be spent in jail anyway, whether he deserved the punishment or not.

This seems to be the recurring thing in my moral dilemmas lol. I know something is wrong, and I'll argue to the death to why that's wrong, but I won't care or act on it lol. Like, I'm not going to become a vegetarian or start donating heaps of money to the poor, cos I just don't care enough. (This is the case for most people methinks).

[SliK]

I don't really see the moral dilemma in giving someone like Ivan Milat the death penalty.

[CrashBand]

I think it's the same emotional and irrational reaction as showing hate to a bear for mauling somebody and wanting to kill the bear because they deserve to die.