Capital Punishment

[Perfection]

Of course he should be executed, if his guilt is not in question. Joe is no longer alive. Its not fair, you say? Is it fair that Joe is never able to live again?

If someone kills someone else because of their mental illness then they are not guilty.

You ask about fairness to Joe, if a good friend of mine developed a mental disorder and mortally wounded me, I would not on my deathbed wish death upon them, rather I would wish that they should overcome their illness. I would not wish for my friend to die too.

 

[timtofly]

I don't think that capital punishment works as a means by itself. For all the above reasons, and this: Whether or not God set it up, it was the fear of God that allowed it to work. Up until the romans invented purgatory, human death was supposed to be final without the abilty to make restitution. Now it is just an out without any justice served whatsoever, or so the human mind set has convinced us that is so. Killing is not really against another human, but against God. While it does take away another person's ability to live their life, along with sorrow to the living, it cut short a life that God had placed on this earth. But, without God, life really has no value except what each person attaches to it, and that can be relative.

Most humans would allow others to "get it right" even at the risk of them killing again. We don't really have the means to ensure one way or the other, but we normally err on the side of doubt. If a fugitive fights back, more than likely their sentence comes down more quickly and their life comes to an end, not that that is a satisfactory ending, but perhaps the thought has entered their mind that ending their life is a better choice than living. Even if they are outnumbered by law enforcement who will keep firing at them, they will fight since dying does not matter and being taken alive is not an option.

 

[Tahuti]

It's the only institution legally entitled to carry out the death penalty, essentially by definition. What's your point?

The more radical libertarians wouldn't necessarily agree with the bolded part. Walter Block advocated both the death penalty and privatised security agencies as replacement for governmental justice apparata.

 

[Kennigit]

Of course he should be executed, if his guilt is not in question. Joe is no longer alive. Its not fair, you say? Is it fair that Joe is never able to live again?

different eg: do you know what manslaughter is?

edit: the answer is of course you do, but you're talking in such extremes. "Joe will never live again" "why should someone who kills get a second chance" etc etc etc

 

[GhostWriter16]

If someone kills someone else because of their mental illness then they are not guilty.

.

I disagree.

different eg: do you know what manslaughter is?

edit: the answer is of course you do, but you're talking in such extremes. "Joe will never live again" "why should someone who kills get a second chance" etc etc etc

The philosophical bottom line is this:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block34.html

 

[GhostWriter16]

The more radical libertarians wouldn't necessarily agree with the bolded part. Walter Block advocated both the death penalty and privatised security agencies as replacement for governmental justice apparata.

Funny that I completely missed this when I linked to Block's justification for the death penalty. But yes, anarcho-capitalists do indeed think as you say. Minarchists (Or other, more moderate shades of libertarianism) by contrast, think that punishment is a legitimate duty of the state (But only for actions which harm others) which may or may not include capital punishment.

 

[Crezth]

The more radical libertarians wouldn't necessarily agree with the bolded part. Walter Block advocated both the death penalty and privatised security agencies as replacement for governmental justice apparata.

Yeah but ultimately those permissions derive from the state. The state has a monopoly on violence: whether it disseminates that privilege is another question.

 

[lovett]

The philosophical bottom line is this:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block34.html

Good god, that's stupid.

 

[Tahuti]

Yeah but ultimately those permissions derive from the state. The state has a monopoly on violence: whether it disseminates that privilege is another question.

That's pointless considering radical libertarians actually advocate abolishing the state.

 

[Crezth]

That's pointless considering radical libertarians actually advocate abolishing the state.

Any institution which disposes violence liberally and within its means via claims of exclusivity and legitimacy, ie within its "jurisdiction," is a state.

 

[Perfection]

I disagree.

If someone is in a state of mind where they cannot control their actions in the way a functional adult would, why should consider them guilty?

It's like if a two your old shot his sister, should we put him to death?

 

[GhostWriter16]

If someone is in a state of mind where they cannot control their actions in the way a functional adult would, why should consider them guilty?

It's like if a two your old shot his sister, should we put him to death?

"Child" is an exception we can clearly define. "Insane" is clearly subjective.

 

[Kennigit]

Good thing we have science!

 

[KMRblue1027]

"Child" is an exception we can clearly define. "Insane" is clearly subjective.

Mental disabilities are NOT subjective. They have clearly defined properties and many of them are have identified periods of temporary insanity or at the very least bouts of major instability. People are not in control of their actions during these moments. You clearly need some basic instruction in metal health.

 

[Perfection]

"Child" is an exception we can clearly define. "Insane" is clearly subjective.

The sorts of mental abilities available to a person is something that clearly can be ascertained and put against a test (M'Naghten Rules as an example). We have a long legal tradition of applying these tests too. This is not a controversial thing to do.

 

[Borachio]

If someone kills another deliberately, to my way of thinking they are, by definition, insane. How could they not be? It is an insane thing to do, isn't it?

 

[El_Machinae]

If someone kills someone else because of their mental illness then they are not guilty.

Why not? The big difference is that the sane person 'feels' like they're in control when they commit a crime, but does that change whether or not they're actually guilty?

Now, there're times when you're clearly not in control of your body, but there're times when you are in control, and your rationality has merely been distorted. This is the variant of the insanity defense you (seem to) say causes the person to not be guilty. But wouldn't nearly any crime require a distorted rationality to enact? Especially the more severe ones?

 

[slothman]

P.S. I haven't posted here in years.

I am for CP, I hope that doesn't get viewed from the FBI as child-p , only in a few cases.
Some people think, "Intruders will be shot!"
I want CP to apply to them; I am biased in that I don't view property as more important as life.
Also for drunk drivers - but only after a few convictions.

I don't want CP to happen on serial killers or "simple" hired assassins.

Many people say you can't undo an execution.
They are right but you also can't undo 10 years in the Big House, I just wanted to call it that.
I doubt the state is going to award you hundreds of millions of dollars for a decade in jail.
If I wanted to lose 10 years of life I might as well smoke.
And yes I did say 10^eight.
10 years is ALOT of time for no freedom and luxuries.
That can't really be undoed either.

I think that most crime's punishment should be lowered.
And none for victimless crimes like drugs, ignoring the rare case of antibiotics and their overuse affecting other people, and prostitution.

I don't think involuntary servitude, i.e. work camps, should be used either.
If you want to get paid to launder, clothes that is, you should still get paid and not doing it should raise your time in jail.

Here is as good a place as any.
Why do people think rape is worse than regular assault?
And no a, "if it happened to you or a family member you'd understand!" isn't valid.
I may still think the punishment is too much, I don't know my thoughts, they may be different than others.

Also why is crime, "near kids" worse?
One of the other posts sad drug-dealing close to schools isn't victimless.
Is that is "Think of the children" logic fallacy?

And finally:
To be both funny and serious.
I won't be satisfied until America's jails are as filled North Korea, which has LESS people in their jails.
Both in total people and percent of population.

 

[Borachio]

^ ?

 

[downtown]

I'm not in favor of capital punishment, but not for many of the reasons people typically oppose it.

For me, it's more about pragmatic, policy reasons. We know that in our country, the death penalty doesn't deter crime. We've also found that death penalty cases create a lot of media attention, which provide incentives for prosecutors to be more aggressive and decreases the chances that the defendant gets a totally fair trial. We also have some evidence that such penalties are not fairly applied, racially. PLUS, they're all expensive.

In a perfect world, where 100% guilt could be proven , and such an approach would deter crime, I wouldn't have a problem with it, but we clearly don't live in that word. For me, I wouldn't want to accidentally kill somebody, which we've done, under those circumstances. It isn't worth it.

I don't think the rights of a victim are unduly trampled on if their assailant spends the rest of his life in prison.