Death Penalty decision imminent for Boston Bomber

[Badger]

Good.

[Badger]

The title is biaised. We shouldn't say "death penalty", but "state-sponsored murder".

Is imprisonment "state sponsered kidnapping"?

[Badger]

I don't really, philosophically, understand the point of punishing bad people if it doesn't deter them or other bad people.  They "deserve it"?  It's totally pointless.  It doesn't make sense.  It doesn't do anything.  I don't see the point of getting pleasure out of it, and generally speaking, I think it's kind of scary to get pleasure out of someone else's suffering, even if they're a bad person.

I can see how someone would be relatively apathetic to the suffering of bad people, but enjoying it just seems to be indulging a scary, jealous, potentially dangerous part of human instinct.

The short answer (because it's late and I'm tired) is: ask most mrder victim's families.

[Badger]

The short answer (because it's late and I'm tired) is: ask most mrder victim's families.

Victim families' support for the death penalty is hardly unamious. And I really doubt it's such a strong majority.

You are absolutely correct on your first point, but absolutely mistaken on your second.

[Badger]

The short answer (because it's late and I'm tired) is: ask most mrder victim's families.

Victim families' support for the death penalty is hardly unamious. And I really doubt it's such a strong majority.

You are absolutely correct on your first point, but absolutely mistaken on your second.

Perhaps. Is there any comprehensive data on the subject?

Just trust me on this.

Alternatively, go ahead with believing that rare murder victim's family pleading forleniency for the killer somehow represents a material divergence of views on the subject. Whatever gets you through the night I guess.

There are tangible, defendable arguments against capital punishment; that isn't one of them.

[Badger]

The short answer (because it's late and I'm tired) is: ask most mrder victim's families.

Victim families' support for the death penalty is hardly unamious. And I really doubt it's such a strong majority.

You are absolutely correct on your first point, but absolutely mistaken on your second.

Perhaps. Is there any comprehensive data on the subject?

Just trust me on this.

Alternatively, go ahead with believing that rare murder victim's family pleading forleniency for the killer somehow represents a material divergence of views on the subject. Whatever gets you through the night I guess.

There are tangible, defendable arguments against capital punishment; that isn't one of them.

Indeed there are. Although I've never heard a rational, defendable argument for capital punishment. It always amounts to popular support , "justice", "they deserve it", etc.

By all objective measures...at the VERY BEST, it fails to do any good for the justice system. In reality, it causes many, many problems. Even if, somehow, no moral concern bothers you, then at least the practical perspective (i.e. that it's expensive and more trouble than it's worth ) should be convincing.

Are you a committed pacifist who believes it's wrong for a solider to shoot another in warr? Was it inherently--or even generally--immoral for Allied troops to kill Nazis? Governments kill regularly. The question is whether the killinng is warranted and justified (e.g. theKent State shootings vs. taking out Bin Laden), not whether all state-sanctioned killings are universally immoral.

[Badger]

Of course.

But you've still not given an objectively good reason for the government regularly killing civilians in peace times. Just pointing to a supposed inconsistency in logic because I'm not a pacifist isn't actually an argument.

Why is speeding given less of a punishment than rape kidnapping and murder? Because it's a dramatically less serious offense. You should explain why the sliding scale of increasing punishments for increasingly serious offenses should arbitrarily draw the line at capital punishment.

On a more practical note, yesterday's paper in Naples, FL, where I'm vacationing had a headline about the execution of a man who raped a nine year old boy, then shot him as he tried running away. It was almost 20 years ago due to the never-ending appeals process. He quickly fell asleep and was snoring before his heart stopped in his sleep. The victim'si brother and father were present. I can't find the paper t to quote them directly, but suffice to say they were relieved that justice was done.

You may weep and gnash your teeth over this 'state-sanction murder' where I see the penultimate penalty for the penultimate crimes, or decry 'acting on a sense of revenge when life behind bars would be enough' when in fact this vicious degenerate was given every fathom of legal due process, from juries considering guilt and penalty, and 20 years of microscopic examination by the appellate process.

My ONLY concern is the boy's mother apparently dies of natural causes before her son's killer was finally brought to justice.

Yes, justice.

[Badger]

Of course.


But you've still not given an objectively good reason for the government regularly killing civilians in peace times. Just pointing to a supposed inconsistency in logic because I'm not a pacifist isn't actually an argument.

Why is speeding given less of a punishment than rape kidnapping and murder? Because it's a dramatically less serious offense. You should explain why the sliding scale of increasing punishments for increasingly serious offenses should arbitrarily draw the line at capital punishment.

On a more practical note, yesterday's paper in Naples, FL, where I'm vacationing had a headline about the execution of a man who raped a nine year old boy, then shot him as he tried running away. It was almost 20 years ago due to the never-ending appeals process. He quickly fell asleep and was snoring before his heart stopped in his sleep. The victim'si brother and father were present. I can't find the paper t to quote them directly, but suffice to say they were relieved that justice was done.

You may weep and gnash your teeth over this 'state-sanction murder' where I see the penultimate penalty for the penultimate crimes, or decry 'acting on a sense of revenge when life behind bars would be enough' when in fact this vicious degenerate was given every fathom of legal due process, from juries considering guilt and penalty, and 20 years of microscopic examination by the appellate process.

My ONLY concern is the boy's mother apparently dies of natural causes before her son's killer was finally brought to justice.

Yes, justice.

OK, if you admit it's just about your subjective sense of "justice", and not that you argue it serves any other purpose, I have to accept that, although my equally subjective feelings tell me it's wrong and pointless.

I do want to take issue with your comment about arbitrarily drawing a line short of capital punishment. Of course I do, but doesn't everyone and every system draw a line somewhere? Why don't we publicly stone child rapists to death? Or whatever other torture you can think of. Of course there's an arbitrary line somewhere. There has to be. It's a question of human decency where to draw it, and I think you as well would fine some forms of punishment immoral.

I almolst added: "And in case we start talking about about stonings and torture..."

The 8th Amendment obviously comes into play here. Torture clearly violates it. Capitall punishment was well established at the time of the Constitution's drafting and thus was clearly within bounds. Stoning was not.

Now admittedly there were forms of punishment that were acceptable in 1783 which clearly aren't today. Flogging comes to mind, but I question how widespread it was at the time, as opposed to fading in use. While hardly uncommon in 1783, it was very uncommon indeed (outside, sadly, military and slavery applications)by the time most of the Founders has died 50 years later. (In b4 likely link to historical treatise escribing a civilian flogging; the key here, guys, is 'widespread'. )

Capital punishment is not just 'my' borderline for the justice system, but for Florida and all the other states that carry it. I don't see how including capital punishment in the legal system is any more 'arbitrary' then excluding it.

[Badger]

Hey Badger, are you sure you used the word "penultimate" correctly there? 

The item before penultimate is prepenultimate, and before that, anteprepenultimate, by the way, just in case you didn't know.

Grammer Nazi.