Do you believe in the death penalty?

[thomasgreen6]

What give you the right to take someone elses life?

What example does it set if the state and legal system resort to taking somones life as a result of them taking somone elses?

In my opinion the argument for criminal punishments should be to prevent a dangerous person from bing free in society and the emphasis must be on idnentifying the underlying causes of crimes and rehabilitating those who commit them.

Remember that without the death penalty, killing somone is just murder.

What about serving in the military?

I think that's a separate moral issue but essentially the underlying moral reasons for your military action defines your culprability. Hence why there are international laws on how wars can be fought and what constitutes a war crime.

[Gendarme]

Nice thread. I am in the same position as you, Kami. On the fence and unsure (although I do not care too much).

[HUMMAN]

So you feed the criminals, give them beds with innocent people's taxes?

[fightinfrenchman]

So you feed the criminals, give them beds with innocent people's taxes?

Yeah that's how prison works

[InsectPoison]

So you feed the criminals, give them beds with innocent people's taxes?

Not every criminal is a murderer.

[Vinyanyérë]

Strongly opposed. I don't believe in any notion of free will that establishes moral responsibility for one's actions, and I believe that moral responsibility is necessary to justify retributive punishments. I think that capital punishment is primarily retributive. Along the other axes for justifications of punishment, we've got incapacitation, rehabilitation, deterrence, and restoration - the death penalty is strictly better than it's alternatives when it comes to incapacitation, but I don't think this is a serious benefit in any modern developed nation. It's strictly worse when it comes to rehabilitation and restoration, and last I checked the literature on its deterrent effects were summarized as "eh, not really". So I don't see much going for it.

edit: I forgot that there's one other reason to implement a death penalty not covered above and that's to purge the world of undesirables but I can't say I'm keen on that one either.

[fightinfrenchman]

Strongly opposed. I don't believe in any notion of free will that establishes moral responsibility for one's actions, and I believe that moral responsibility is necessary to justify retributive punishments. I think that capital punishment is primarily retributive. Along the other axes for justifications of punishment, we've got incapacitation, rehabilitation, deterrence, and restoration - the death penalty is strictly better than it's alternatives when it comes to incapacitation, but I don't think this is a serious benefit in any modern developed nation. It's strictly worse when it comes to rehabilitation and restoration, and last I checked the literature on its deterrent effects were summarized as "eh, not really". So I don't see much going for it.

edit: I forgot that there's one other reason to implement a death penalty not covered above and that's to purge the world of undesirables but I can't say I'm keen on that one either.

Gangnam style

[deleted_user]

Inb4 Locke

[kami_ryu]

-- deleted post --

[fightinfrenchman]

I don't believe in any notion of free will that establishes moral responsibility for one's actions,

I don't understand this part. Which sucks because it's what you base the rest of what you say on (which I'm not inclined to disagree with, I suppose).

He's saying that there is no such thing as free will, we are just the products of random chemical interactions in our brains, so people can't really be blamed for anything they do

[Vinyanyérë]

I don't believe in any notion of free will that establishes moral responsibility for one's actions,

I don't understand this part. Which sucks because it's what you base the rest of what you say on (which I'm not inclined to disagree with, I suppose).

I think most people have no problem with the idea of mitigating circumstances affecting the severity of punishment. We might cut off your hand if you're stealing bread for the fun of it, but we'd feel kind of bad if we cut off your hand after learning that you were stealing bread to feed your family of thirty after you got fired from your factory job because we previously cut off your other hand and also you have pneumonia. Similarly, if a seemingly normal person commits a murder and we find out that they have a massive brain tumor pushing against their decision-making brain part (idk the components of the brain), we'd feel a little differently about that than if we didn't find any tumor.

A position that I think can be taken is that human psychology is highly complex and that peoples' decisions are to a large extent influenced by factors outside of their direct control, making any sort of punishment that presumes that people have full control over their actions a pretty tough sell. A more extreme position that can be taken here is that there is no meaningful sense of human free will, that peoples' decisions are made entirely by factors outside of their "control" (a word which starts to lose a lot of meaning here), and so any punishment that uses the notion that people have any control over their actions as a factor is wrong. I take the latter position although I think the former is probably good enough when it comes to arguments against capital punishment.

[kami_ryu]

-- deleted post --

[Vinyanyérë]

Acts can still be malicious, and doing something wrong with the intent to harm has to be treated differently from doing the same without that intent.

[kami_ryu]

-- deleted post --

[deleted_user0]

It solves the problem of having scum that has no place in society be out of it permanently. There's no need to pay for the cost of the person's living for instance.

I can see the issue with making a mistake with the conviction. We can assume that for the sake of discussion that there is pretty much no mistake to be made with the conviction. In other words the death penalty would be applied only if it were absolutely certain that the person committed the crime in the first place.

Life is certainly precious but I wonder if it's actually all that precious to humanity. People die all the time after all, often due to sheer neglect. Consequently I wonder how much I would value the life of someone who murdered my daughter or something.

Also we could get rid of life sentences. Which is money saved.

Killing someone by death penalty is very expensive in the US. Shouldnt be too hard to find on google.

I mean if it's that expensive they're doing it wrong. Or someone's palms are getting greased when they shouldn't be.

There's no way to be absolutely certain. And while we have more ways nowadays to make sure that we find the right perp. There's also more ways for the general public to exert influence over the trial outcome. Especially in citizen jury systems.

Most research indicates that not only is the death penalty very expensive (exactly because you really cant make a mistake so the court cases and appeals are often longer, and also because of the procedures to kill and dispose of the convict) but also it doesnt really work as a determent.

But ye there isnt really a good solution. Really the only one is that preventing is better than curing. But that suggests a level of invasiveness that might be worse than any flawed legal system

It seems to be the direction china is headed in though

[deleted_user0]

Strongly opposed. I don't believe in any notion of free will that establishes moral responsibility for one's actions, and I believe that moral responsibility is necessary to justify retributive punishments. I think that capital punishment is primarily retributive. Along the other axes for justifications of punishment, we've got incapacitation, rehabilitation, deterrence, and restoration - the death penalty is strictly better than it's alternatives when it comes to incapacitation, but I don't think this is a serious benefit in any modern developed nation. It's strictly worse when it comes to rehabilitation and restoration, and last I checked the literature on its deterrent effects were summarized as "eh, not really". So I don't see much going for it.

edit: I forgot that there's one other reason to implement a death penalty not covered above and that's to purge the world of undesirables but I can't say I'm keen on that one either.

Moral responsibility isnt necessary to advocate punishment. I take it you dont advocate no legal system at all. So why is that? If were not reaponsible? You can argue for the death penalty not because they broke a moral law. But because thwy are a threat to the community. Responsibility is irrelevant for this. We could also argue that it serves as a warning trigger that might steer these chemicals in a different direction (though data show this to be ineffective to date).

In in the end your notion of moral responsibility isn't necessarily coherent. You can still punish based on morality even if there's a lack of agency when there is intent. Even when Jones had no "choice" but to kill Smith, he's still guilty in a moral sense if he wanted to kill smith. Ofcourse intent is difficult to prove in court.

I'm nit a big fan of the guilty discourse. I prefer to talk about responsibility. That's what we ought to teach every member of the community. And wether it's a rational agent or a bunch of chemicals, we are what we are. And we're responsible for our actions.

And if everything is hardcore determined then this discussion is pointless anyway but we'll have it regardless because its in our script.

[Ashvin]

I believe in capital punishments, it creates the fear of crime in the minds of people. Giving murderers second chance based on the circumstances that led to a death by the person can be considered but rehab and shit cost way too much money and time. Why do honest taxpayers have to bear the burden of the anti-social elements of the society? Why do innocent people have to sponsor square meal and a place to live for a rapist or a murderer? Not talking about other petty crimes but there are some crimes for which the offender deserves to be banished from society.

[Goodspeed]

I don't believe in any notion of free will that establishes moral responsibility for one's actions,

I don't think free will is necessary for moral responsibility. Besides, the more I read about people's interpretations of free will, the more I think it's a nonsensical concept. If your will is being influenced by randomness, then how is it any more "free" than if it isn't influenced by randomness (and is therefore predictable)?

Humans act predictably. But this doesn't make them not responsible for their actions. In short, imo, a person isn't responsible for what they want, but is responsible for what they do. If you want to kill a person, that's fine, but if you act on that urge you have to be held accountable. You made that decision, and it influenced others around you quite negatively. Whether you are wired to do it or not is irrelevant. I see why people would think so, but I don't think determinism and responsibility are mutually exclusive.

I run into a similar argument when trying to convince @XeeleeFlower that selfless acts exist. Ultimately all of our actions are selfish, but selfishness and selflessness, in a crazy twist, are not mutually exclusive either. If acting against your own best interest to help someone else made you feel good, you were selfishly selfless.

I am still against the death penalty because even though we are all responsible for our actions, death is not an effective punishment. Punishment needs to be about rehabilitation, and if that doesn't work the criminal should still be given a chance at a life away from society.

[deleted_user0]

I believe in capital punishments, it creates the fear of crime in the minds of people. Giving murderers second chance based on the circumstances that led to a death by the person can be considered but rehab and shit cost way too much money and time. Why do honest taxpayers have to bear the burden of the anti-social elements of the society? Why do innocent people have to sponsor square meal and a place to live for a rapist or a murderer? Not talking about other petty crimes but there are some crimes for which the offender deserves to be banished from society.

historically harsher punishments haven't lead to less crime. In fact, there's a solid case that they lead to more crime. In America you're punished heavily for owning small amounts of weed (which is partially a problem of institutional racism). Young boys go to jail and hardened criminals come out, or otherwise damaged and unstable shells of people. Just look at the Kalief Browder Story or The night of. Both available on netflix.

You're gonna pay for justice regardless. Whether it's capital punishment or prison sentence. You could of course privatize the jails... But just a short look at the USA should change your mind about that.

[momuuu]

I mostly have issues with seeing justice as a penalty/retribution system. I don't feel like people that do bad things should necessarily be punished, it feels like the system is there to discourage people from committing crimes and for keeping dangerous people away from society. I think the death penalty doesn't really reduce crime rate in practise (though the statistics probably don't provide definitive evidence). Then, based on those beliefs, I'm against death penalty.

[Ashvin]

I believe in capital punishments, it creates the fear of crime in the minds of people. Giving murderers second chance based on the circumstances that led to a death by the person can be considered but rehab and shit cost way too much money and time. Why do honest taxpayers have to bear the burden of the anti-social elements of the society? Why do innocent people have to sponsor square meal and a place to live for a rapist or a murderer? Not talking about other petty crimes but there are some crimes for which the offender deserves to be banished from society.

historically harsher punishments haven't lead to less crime. In fact, there's a solid case that they lead to more crime. In America you're punished heavily for owning small amounts of weed (which is partially a problem of institutional racism). Young boys go to jail and hardened criminals come out, or otherwise damaged and unstable shells of people. Just look at the Kalief Browder Story or The night of. Both available on netflix.

You're gonna pay for justice regardless. Whether it's capital punishment or prison sentence. You could of course privatize the jails... But just a short look at the USA should change your mind about that.

Yeah, that's why I said

Not talking about other petty crimes but there are some crimes ...

I take the case of India because I know its condition better than any nation. Rape is a real issue here and offenders are usually get away from the punishment or they are sentenced to between 7 years - life. Still, the number of such cases are only increasing. I know that it's less as compared to other countries, but the situation is alarming.

And it's not just me but a majority of people in my country think that to induce that fear, the Indian government should do what middle east nations do- capital punishment or chopping off of the private parts of the offender, to set an example.

The image of the country is at stake because of such cases, a place where girls are given the place of goddesses are now raped and just not raped but their vagina is penetrated with literally anything offenders find. In one case a boy under 18 pulled out the intestines from a girl's vag, do you still think such people deserve to live?

India earns about 10% of its enormous GDP from tourism and with a country filled with such pervs no woman would want to visit. Is it not alarming? What is the solution to it if not the belief in the minds of people that justice will be served and will be served fast, and the fear in the minds of potential offenders.

[deleted_user0]

It seems to me like I'm saying the opposite of what you say.

And imo, instead of going around chopping off dicks, perhaps you should teach the people not to put their dicks where they don't belong. I won't presume to know india better than you do, but why aren't you mentioning the caste system and the consequences of people believing they're born superior to others. It's the same in the Middle East. It's probably even worse there. In many cases it's the woman who gets blamed for the rape, and who is at risk of losing her life or her liberty.

Sure, it's possible, although I think unlikely, that such a direct and corporeal judgment system might induce fear into people which will prevent crime. But this means they will still do it if they feel they can get away with it. They're not better people. They're just scared people. Imo it matters why you do or don't do something.

Take this example. You have 3 people. 1 doesn't rape children because he thinks it's wrong (prevention due to moral pressure). 1 doesn't rape children because he's afraid he'll get caught and punished (prevention due to legal pressure). And the other doesn't rape children because he's afraid that other people will find out and form bad opinions about him (prevention due to social pressure). It seems clear to me that the first one is the most preferred one. Especially since the other 2 methods are far from effective. They work sometimes, and often times they don't. Especially when it comes to rape, where it's quite difficult to prove, unless there is tape, drugs or marks of extreme violence that the sex wasn't consensual.

[Ashvin]

I don't think teaching 1.32 billion people is an effective solution, okay let's cut the 47% females of the country, now 699 million men. If it was that easy there would be no crimes at all. Speaking of your example, I agree the first person is the most preferred one, but other two people are also acceptable. If the rape stats are decreasing because of social or legal pressure what's wrong? It is a lot better than people raping others knowing they will be caught and punished or knowing they will be judged. At least people are not getting raped whatever the reason is. At least it is better than the current scenario. Don't you think?

I didn't mention caste system because I really do not think rape has nothing to do with caste system or lower caste people are even getting suppressed. There are numerous ministers in every state in India. Mr. Ramnath Kovind is the second Dalit president of India. Dalit is considered a "lower caste. The government, since 1980's has reserved seats of prestigious universities just to so-called lower caste people. So you see it's not that big of a problem.

I am writing specifically about rapes but this can be generalized to any problem. Anything which can make the current situation better can be a solution. If chopping off dicks makes it better, or killing offenders makes it better let's have it then. Rape is not something you do by mistake.

"Young boys go to jail and hardened criminals come out" is true, but I think that's because of the company they live with, that's a serious flaw in the jail system.

[deleted_user0]

I'm not saying it's easy. I'm saying it's most effective, when it comes to the individual at least. Harsh measures work good when it comes to public relations, but they don't really work well in practice. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong per se, with decreasing crime via legal or social pressure, however I am saying that this hasn't proven particularly effective. You assume that more severe punishment will lead to less crime. IF it was, then the middle east should be one of the safest and crime free regions in the world. But... that's not true.

You seem to believe that rape is happening because the justice system is ineffective. However, I think rape is happening because the education system is ineffective. Prevention > cure. Or in this case, not even cure, but just putting on band aids.

I mean, I do think that people thinking or knowing theyre very likely to get away with a crime is a reason to make sure that you improve the justice so that they no longer get away with it. But I honestly don't really think it matters in that case whether you chop off their dicks or put them in jail and rehabilitate them for 5 years.

I am writing specifically about rapes but this can be generalized to any problem. Anything which can make the current situation better can be a solution. If chopping off dicks makes it better, or killing offenders makes it better let's have it then. Rape is not something you do by mistake.

Sure, i get that. But what makes you think it would actually decrease that type of crime? And you perhaps don't rape by mistake, but people do get convicted by mistake. Especially in rape cases, I think there's quite a disproportional percentage of people walking free who should be punished, but also people who are convicted, perhaps when they shouldn't have been. When do you decide to cut off someone's dick? What do you do when it turns out you were wrong? This is ofcourse a problem with any type of punishment, but even more so with ones that take very severe measures.

I didn't mention caste system because I really do not think rape has nothing to do with caste system or lower caste people are even getting suppressed. There are numerous ministers in every state in India. Mr. Ramnath Kovind is the second Dalit president of India. Dalit is considered a "lower caste. The government, since 1980's has reserved seats of prestigious universities just to so-called lower caste people. So you see it's not that big of a problem.

Ok, I'll take your word for it.

[Goodspeed]

It's a gradual, societal change. Teaching is the solution, it just takes a long time for that kind of change to happen. People need to be taught respect, and that's a tough thing to teach. Widespread poverty and a general dog eat dog attitude makes it even harder.

Harsher punishment is indeed a band-aid solution. It might still help though.