Death Penalty decision imminent for Boston Bomber

[Alcon]

Here's why you're wrong.  First, even if the individual wrongdoer if not influenced by deterrence, there can be a deterrence value to society at large.  But, deterrence isn't the only reason why we punish morally wrongdoing.

I don't understand where you got the idea that I'm neglecting the possibility of deterrence to society at large.  I even mentioned it specifically: "I don't really, philosophically, understand the point of punishing bad people if it doesn't deter them or other bad people."  I also explicitly stated I'm putting aside deterrence, since deterrence doesn't seem to have much to do with claims that certain people "deserve to die."

Here's a thought experiment.  We invent a magic pill that makes people incapable of murder.  Would that be an acceptable alternative to punishment?  Someone has just killed a young child in cold blood, but we know 100% they will never do it again.  Is that good enough?  

I suppose the objection to this would be that punishment also raises social consciousness and when people hear about the punishment, they will also be deterred from murder.  Then, say we also have a pill we can drop into the water supply that will raise the social consciousness about the wrongfulness of murder as much as life in prison or the death penalty.

In this world, would we be OK letting murders go free with no punishment at all?  I suspect most people would not.

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

You didn't explain how I'm "wrong" at all.  You just indicated that most people disagree with me.  Why do they disagree with me?  What's the logical reason?  Personal catharsis?  If so, do you think finding catharsis in cruelty/killing is something we should be encouraging and celebrating?  (Maybe the answer is "yes" in respect to crime victims' families, but is this behavior healthy when it manifests like it did in this thread, from people who probably weren't hit very hard emotionally by these events?)

In any case, none of this still explains the idea that someone "deserves" to die.  It explains why their death is useful to others' emotional well-being.  And, yes, actually, if there were a pill that magically cured someone of their malevolent tendencies, and we removed the variable of detterence, I would not necessarily support punishing the person.  There would be no utility to punishing the person.  Best case scenario, you'd be inflicting suffering on a bad person with no capacity for malevolence (pointless cruelty); worst case scenario, you'd be inflicting suffering on a now-good person (pretty sadistic).  Our animal minds may tell us this is "just," but our animal minds can be pretty perverse.  That's why we have any of these problems in the first place.

[bedstuy]

Here's why you're wrong.  First, even if the individual wrongdoer if not influenced by deterrence, there can be a deterrence value to society at large.  But, deterrence isn't the only reason why we punish morally wrongdoing.

I don't understand where you got the idea that I'm neglecting the possibility of deterrence to society at large.  I even mentioned it specifically: "I don't really, philosophically, understand the point of punishing bad people if it doesn't deter them or other bad people."  I also explicitly stated I'm putting aside deterrence, since deterrence doesn't seem to have much to do with claims that certain people "deserve to die."

Here's a thought experiment.  We invent a magic pill that makes people incapable of murder.  Would that be an acceptable alternative to punishment?  Someone has just killed a young child in cold blood, but we know 100% they will never do it again.  Is that good enough?  

I suppose the objection to this would be that punishment also raises social consciousness and when people hear about the punishment, they will also be deterred from murder.  Then, say we also have a pill we can drop into the water supply that will raise the social consciousness about the wrongfulness of murder as much as life in prison or the death penalty.

In this world, would we be OK letting murders go free with no punishment at all?  I suspect most people would not.

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

You didn't explain how I'm "wrong" at all.  You just indicated that most people disagree with me.  Why do they disagree with me?  What's the logical reason?  Personal catharsis?  If so, do you think finding catharsis in cruelty/killing is something we should be encouraging and celebrating?  (Maybe the answer is "yes" in respect to crime victims' families, but is this behavior healthy when it manifests like it did in this thread, from people who probably weren't hit very hard emotionally by these events?)

In any case, none of this still explains the idea that someone "deserves" to die.  It explains why their death is useful to others' emotional well-being.  And, yes, actually, if there were a pill that magically cured someone of their malevolent tendencies, and we removed the variable of detterence, I would not necessarily support punishing the person.  There would be no utility to punishing the person.  Best case scenario, you'd be inflicting suffering on a bad person with no capacity for malevolence (pointless cruelty); worst case scenario, you'd be inflicting suffering on a now-good person (pretty sadistic).  Our animal minds may tell us this is "just," but our animal minds can be pretty perverse.  That's why we have any of these problems in the first place.

I'm glad you addressed my hypothetical in that way.  This is really complicated philosophical stuff and I think we can benefit from getting our difference out in the open.  What you're saying is that there's no retribution you would support.  Is that right though?

In the case of murder in my no deterrence world, would oppose tort damages for their family members in a civil suit?  If not, then the problem is that the death penalty or jail is not compensatory for the family?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Here's a thought experiment.  We invent a magic pill that makes people incapable of murder.  Would that be an acceptable alternative to punishment?  Someone has just killed a young child in cold blood, but we know 100% they will never do it again.  Is that good enough?

No. Not because of the lack of punishment but because of the lack of prophylaxis.  Assuming that magic pill has no side effects, why isn't it's use being required of everyone rather than being given to those who already murdered?

[bedstuy]

Here's a thought experiment.  We invent a magic pill that makes people incapable of murder.  Would that be an acceptable alternative to punishment?  Someone has just killed a young child in cold blood, but we know 100% they will never do it again.  Is that good enough?

No. Not because of the lack of punishment but because of the lack of prophylaxis.  Assuming that magic pill has no side effects, why isn't it's use being required of everyone rather than being given to those who already murdered?

The magic only works on people who have already committed murder before.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Here's a thought experiment.  We invent a magic pill that makes people incapable of murder.  Would that be an acceptable alternative to punishment?  Someone has just killed a young child in cold blood, but we know 100% they will never do it again.  Is that good enough?

No. Not because of the lack of punishment but because of the lack of prophylaxis.  Assuming that magic pill has no side effects, why isn't it's use being required of everyone rather than being given to those who already murdered?

The magic only works on people who have already committed murder before.

Well then issuing it prophylactically would still stop serial murderers from repeating their crimes before they are caught.

[bedstuy]

Here's a thought experiment.  We invent a magic pill that makes people incapable of murder.  Would that be an acceptable alternative to punishment?  Someone has just killed a young child in cold blood, but we know 100% they will never do it again.  Is that good enough?

No. Not because of the lack of punishment but because of the lack of prophylaxis.  Assuming that magic pill has no side effects, why isn't it's use being required of everyone rather than being given to those who already murdered?

The magic only works on people who have already committed murder before.

Well then issuing it prophylactically would still stop serial murderers from repeating their crimes before they are caught.

It only works if you take it after you murder someone, and anyway, that's not the point of my hypothetical.  My point is that deterrence is not the only reason we punish people.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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.

[Alcon]

I'm glad you addressed my hypothetical in that way.  This is really complicated philosophical stuff and I think we can benefit from getting our difference out in the open.  What you're saying is that there's no retribution you would support.  Is that right though?

If we're defining retribution as a punishment based entirely off the idea that someone "deserves" to suffer for bad conduct, yes.

In the case of murder in my no deterrence world, would oppose tort damages for their family members in a civil suit?  If not, then the problem is that the death penalty or jail is not compensatory for the family?

No, because I don't see those as exclusively retribution: it's compensatory.  Are you arguing for the state-sanctioned execution of a criminal as being compensation toward the victim's family?  That's a plausible argument, but it seems kind of troublesome...

[bedstuy]

I'm glad you addressed my hypothetical in that way.  This is really complicated philosophical stuff and I think we can benefit from getting our difference out in the open.  What you're saying is that there's no retribution you would support.  Is that right though?

If we're defining retribution as a punishment based entirely off the idea that someone "deserves" to suffer for bad conduct, yes.

In the case of murder in my no deterrence world, would oppose tort damages for their family members in a civil suit?  If not, then the problem is that the death penalty or jail is not compensatory for the family?

No, because I don't see those as exclusively retribution: it's compensatory.  Are you arguing for the state-sanctioned execution of a criminal as being compensation toward the victim's family?  That's a plausible argument, but it seems kind of troublesome...

OK, so your problem with punishing people is that it's not either compensatory or deterrent. 

Here's my basic position.  I think the family or estate of a victim is not necessarily relevant to the criminal punishment.  That would be revenge and a criminal case is brought by the state so it doesn't really fit.

I think criminal law is partly based on the equitable principle that if you deprive someone of liberty and break the social contract with the state, you should suffer to bring about equity in society.  Equity as between the criminal and the rest of society, so that the criminal isn't benefiting from the peace of society without reciprocating.  Equity as between the victim and the criminal so that the criminal has an equitable reduction in his liberty to prevent a type of quasi-unjust enrichment of liberty.

[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.

[Franzl]

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.

Even if this is true, making human rights dependent on popular opinion is a tad questionable.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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?

[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.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

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.

It literally makes the top news story when, on rare occasions, the victim's family requests the district attorney not seek the death penalty when he otherwise would have.......it's very rare, Kal.  The families that do hold your strong belief against it, but again, a rarity.

[Franzl]

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.

[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.

[Franzl]

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.

[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.

[Torie]

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.

[Franzl]

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.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Guys, lets just give him a PS3 and call it even.

[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.

[Franzl]

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.

I don't dispute this, but when debating whether something is good, I don't think a constitutional argument really contributes much to that. Holding slaves was also considered constitutional at one point in history.

This is an entirely normative question that can only be decided based on your morals. And I don't think we're ever going to reconcile our differences here

[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.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

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.

It's antepenultimate and preantepenultimate. To the Bad Grammar Cage with you!