Capital Punishment, is it OK or not?

[warpus]

"Letting the punishment fit the crime" is actually VERY merciful. It very often takes only the crime into account, not the monetary/ emotional damage to the victim's family and friends, the criminal's own family and friends, and court fees among others. Fail to do even that, and we would be doing an injustice to a party that has already suffered for no good reason (the victim's family and friends). What if the victim was someone's only friend? Someone's spouse for 20+ years? Almost nobody seems to care about them when the time comes to determine punishment.

Guy poops on my front porch. Does a cop show up and poop on his front porch?

 

[Midgard Eagle]

^^Amazing how "let the punishment fit the crime" seems to apply to no crimes whatsoever, except of course the death sentence.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Also, do you know of any inmates who were convicted of murder who successfully reintegrated?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Grantham

He rehabilitated quite well until he was caught on a webcam masturbating and dressed as a pirate.

 

[Leoreth]

^^Amazing how "let the punishment fit the crime" seems to apply to no crimes whatsoever, except of course the death sentence.

Oh, I'm sure our resident DP supporters will find some contrivances to make that work.

 

[Takhisis]

Since rapists usually let their victims go free (not always, but let's keep things simple) I suppose we should rape rapists and then set them loose.

 

[Midgard Eagle]

We do. Sexual abuse is rampant in US prisons, and the American populace for the most part turns a blind eye or considers it a justified part of the punishment.

 

[Brighteye]

If justice is merely a moral intuition, then it needs a democratic vote, and there is no barbarity or civilisation in the death penalty: only in rejecting the will of the people.

If we want consistent intuitions, then there's a discussion to be had to check whether people's opinions are consistent with each other.

If we want to have a practical argument without considering justice then the death penalty has little going for it. But considering an act of justice without the justice is utterly pointless. Furthermore, a lot of the cost of the death penalty is due to the endless array of appeals, which are hardly specific to the death penalty, but screw up a large number of areas of law, such as corporate law, in which companies quite happily plough money into pointless cases just to buy time.

I am not happy with 'an eye for an eye' because it is far too kind. If I am a rich merchant who owns two ships, and I have a rival in the area who owns one ship and I sink it, then sinking a ship of mine in return still leaves me with a monopoly.

My own opinion is that there needs to be no way in which someone can benefit from a crime, as well as there being an equal action done to that person in return. So in my example, a ship of mine needs to be given to the other merchant, and then a ship of mine sunk.

Murderers can't ressurrect their victims, and therefore cannot serve a full punishment. They can pay reparations to interested parties (including the state itself) and be killed themselves. If I think that it's fine for one person to murder another, then I can have no complaint when someone does that to me.

 

[Zack]

"Letting the punishment fit the crime" is actually VERY merciful.

Let's say Person A does [unspeakable sexual acts].

Should he be forced to be at the receiving end of those very same [unspeakable sexual acts]?

 

[Takhisis]

Ninja'd you by over half an hour Zack.

 

[Zack]

Ah, but rape isn't unspeakable.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

"A bummed in the gob for a bummed in the gob makes the whole world bummed in the gob" - Gandhi.

 

[Takhisis]

If someone gobs me in the bum I should gob 'em in their bum.

 

[lovett]

If I think that it's fine for one person to murder another, then I can have no complaint when someone does that to me.

I do not disagree with the rest of your post. Perhaps, that is because it is almost entirely in conditionals. However, this last claim is simply false. To be clear, the claim I interpret you to be making is a logical one; that any murderer who claims that they should not be killed by the state because of their right to life (or some such) is being logically inconsistent. They have already endorsed the view that it is (morally) permissible for one person to kill another.

This claim would be true if and only if the murderer believe moral judgments were neutral and universal; they do not change regardless of who one is, and they apply to everyone.However, although I think this claim is defensible I do not think it is a necessary belief one must hold. One can surely claim that it is morally right for me to kill someone (indeed, perhaps I am an ubermensch) but not that it is morally right for anyone else to kill someone, or for anyone to kill me. This is simply a view of morality which allows different things to be moral for different people.

I doubt any such view is credible, but it's implausibility is a substantive these resting on the universality and neutrality of moral demands. There is nothing logically inconsistent with rejecting it.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Also, do you know of any inmates who were convicted of murder who successfully reintegrated?

You mean like Rubin "Hurricane" Carter, pro boxer (27-12-1), who was apparently set up by the cops and served 18 years for a crime he seemingly didn't commit:

From 1993 to 2005 Carter served as executive director of the Association in Defense of the Wrongly Convicted.

The federal judge who finally dismissed the charges said:

A conviction which rests upon racial stereotypes, fears and prejudices violates rights too fundamental to permit deference to stand in the way of the relief sought.

 

[JollyRoger]

We need to cut down on the time it takes from a death sentence to the execution being carried out. Too many people convicted of murder are getting exhonorated befdore we get a chance to carry out the sentence.

 

[peter grimes]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Grantham

He rehabilitated quite well until he was caught on a webcam masturbating and dressed as a pirate.

Thanks, but I was more interested in dizzy's personal experience. I have no doubt that there have been dozens, hundreds, thousands of convicted murderers who have gone on to live perfectly reasonable lives*. I was curious to hear from his first person experience.

*I don't think that masturbating on a web cam has anything at all to do with having been convicted of murder, nor do I think that it's at all relevant to whether or not he was rehabilitated. I'm sure there are many people who do one who would not do the other. It's not at all important.

 

[dIZZyBlIZZy]

Thanks, but I was more interested in dizzy's personal experience.

As you see there are some. As for inmates in my facility, I can only 1 for sure. It's only because I accidentally bumped into him at a tire shop he was working at. This was around a year afterwards and he remembered me much better than I remembered him, but usually I never see them after release (especially since most live in Memphis and Knoxville).

I don't follow inmates around after release (that would be kinda psychotic methinks) so the examples you were given were far better. All I can do is give a basis of their classification sheet.

BTW - it is not only highly likely but probable that those who become remorseful did so because they were caught.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Guy poops on my front porch. Does a cop show up and poop on his front porch?

Reminds me of an Oglaf comic:

Peasant: Ulric! Uuulric! A devil bear has stolen my wife!
Ulric: This shall not stand.
*later*
Ulric: Justice is served. I bring you ... the devil bear's wife!
Peasant: Actually, I wanted my wife back.
Ulric: You have no concept of justice. Enjoy your new wife.

 

[Berzerker]

I cant trust the state with the power

 

[markantony]

What of the family and friends of the person who is executed?