Capital Punishment

[Tahuti]

Capital punishment is both pragmatically as well as morally repugnant. Aside from the possibility of wrongful execution, and the ill-effects it may have on the justice system, it is also dishonorable and shameful to kill defenseless persons in premediation, no matter their crimes.

 

[Perfection]

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?

Well, my above goal was not to put forth a controversial test for insanity. While I am interested in border cases for insanity my main statement to make is that there are some cases where what is going on in a person's head is so divorced from actual reality, that we cannot reasonably ascribe guilt to them. If someone kills someone because they think they are alien replicons sent to destroy Earth, and that can be shown in a court then I don't think we can judge them as requiring the same treatment as a garden variety murderer.

 

[sophie]

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

I guess we can add psychology to the very long list of things Dommy both knows absolutely nothing about and yet speaks with absolute authority on.

To whit: while "insane" may be an entirely subjective term, thankfully "insane" is not a diagnosis generally administered by psychologists. Likewise "lunatic". This isn't the turn of the 20th century. We've come a very long way since the days of Freud.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yes and no. "Insane" is really tough to define and fairly tough to diagnose, outside of specific hardcore cases. We run into this problem in schizophrenia all the time, the majority of schizophrenics have perfectly intact moral compasses, even during a psychotic break.

 

[Borachio]

In modern usage insanity is most commonly encountered as an informal unscientific term denoting mental instability, or in the narrow legal context of the insanity defense. In the medical profession the term is now avoided in favor of diagnoses of specific mental disorders; the presence of delusions or hallucinations is broadly referred to as psychosis.[1] When discussing mental illness in general terms, "psychopathology" is considered a preferred descriptor

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

Most courts accept a major mental illness such as psychosis but will not accept the diagnosis of a personality disorder for the purposes of an insanity defense. The second question is whether the mental illness interfered with the defendant's ability to distinguish right from wrong. That is, did the defendant know that the alleged behavior was against the law at the time the offense was committed.

Additionally, some jurisdictions add the question of whether or not the defendant was in control of their behavior at the time of the offense. For example, if the defendant was compelled by some aspect of their mental illness to commit the illegal act, the defendant could be evaluated as not in control of their behavior at the time of the offense.

The forensic mental health specialists submit their evaluations to the court. Since the question of sanity or insanity is a legal question and not a medical one, the judge and or jury will make the final decision regarding the defendant's status regarding an insanity defense.

Hmmm.

 

[Kennigit]

^

it's still yes and no, because it really is still scientific by proxy:

Usage and success rate

This increased coverage gives the impression that the defense is widely used, but this is not the case. According to an eight-state study, the insanity defense is used in less than 1% of all court cases and, when used, has only a 26% success rate.[3] Of those cases that were successful, 90% of the defendants had been previously diagnosed with mental illness.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity_defense#Usage_and_success_rate

You got forensic mental health specialists giving their evaluations to the court, and from that 90% of those who are successful in insanity defense have previous documented history. That's pretty much still just leaving it to the court psychologist's/the previous psychologist's professional recommendations.

 

[GhostWriter16]

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.

Yeah, I tend to agree in the real world. I don't really care about the "Fair application of the penalty", if you're guilty and deserve to die, that someone else doesn't get what they deserve isn't really an argument, but I'm definitely worried about executing innocents. I may be coming around on this.

 

[Borachio]

It's very strange that two people, who are ostensibly Christian, could be opposed to capital punishment on pragmatic grounds (though neither of you seem very sure), but not as a matter of principle.

Still, maybe it's not so strange. I can scarcely claim to understand Christianity.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm not Christian, and I feel like my opposition is also due to pragmatism.

 

[Borachio]

That's fair enough I suppose. There's really not a lot wrong with the pragmatic argument, imo. I subscribed to it myself for a long time.

I used to say that capital punishment was not even pragmatic. I don't think I ever persuaded anyone though.

 

[Perfection]

Yes and no. "Insane" is really tough to define and fairly tough to diagnose, outside of specific hardcore cases. We run into this problem in schizophrenia all the time, the majority of schizophrenics have perfectly intact moral compasses, even during a psychotic break.

I'm not doubting the toughness of certain insanity claims, finding the right interpretation of every case is going to be tricky. However, I must state to use that as an excuse to not attempt to figure it out as dommy does is a gross miscarriage of justice. It is immoral to dismiss mental illness as wishy-washy subjective stuff, just because it's a complicated issue. Thankfully we have a judicial system that has the courage to take on such issues.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

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

Not to mention that revenge is a questionable "right".
I think my moral rather than pragmatic qualms with the death penalty come down to me not recognizing the moral authority of "deserving something" to the extend others may do. That is so because such an approach clashes with the approach that human wellbeing serves no purpose but is the purpose itself. Or in other words that being good is good because it is good.
When it is all about deserving good or bad, we find ourself within a moral compass where good is a conditional entitlement which can be earned or lost.
But my idea of moral behavior is not the idea of a system of "points" which determine the responsibility of others to be good to someone. Because that degrades ones moral compass to a kind of economy of morality where everyone fends for his or her own to earn or loose "morality points". But only looking out for oneself and only doing good to others if according to the rules of the game they deserve it is not what I call moral behavior. That I would rather call cultivated brutish nature. Not unlike capitalism.

To me moral behavior is doing good to humans. Which means to increase human well-begin. That and nothing else.
I suppose that is why I am an utilitarian.

Don't get me wrong though. I certainly understand some lust for revenge. If people close to me got slaughtered by some total douche bag, I may want this person to hang, too. But I wouldn't have the - in my opinion - insolence to want to legitimize this primitive brutish lust for blood with a deserve-moral-compass where such a bad lust is turned into a lust to be morally approved of. No, in my mind, harming someone is intself still worng.
"To deserve" would only enter my train of thought, when I say had to choose between executing an "evil" person or an "innocent" person. So I am not even saying that this deserve-stigma has no merit at all. I am however saying, that it is only like an additional qualifier to being good to humans in cases when being good to humans leaves you with different choices, rather than a consideration in its own right.

 

[Akka]

I guess we can add psychology to the very long list of things Dommy both knows absolutely nothing about and yet speaks with absolute authority on.

Which make it all the more annoying that people still continue to feed his neverending drivel even when shown times and times again it's useless, and only drown potentially interesting threads.

As for the subject at hand, I'm one the fence.

On one hand, I don't have this weird feeling people shows about how it's atrocious to kill someone "whatever his crime". This looks more like the moral equivalent of chest-banging to me, and it also feels completely double-faced - most of the time, spending so much time saying how people who want to punish are barbarians and primates and the like, that they end up making the actual criminal look like a victim, and the actual victim being rather ignored so they can make a point.
Though life is of the utmost importance, it's worth is ultimately not only innate, but also what you make of it - and if someone spend it to make other's miserable, then it's not worth that much and I have absolutely no problem with them disposed of (as, at such a time, it's actually in fact more of a "disposal" than a "killing"). I agree where such line is drawn depends on people, and I also agree that sometimes redemption is possible, but I don't believe in the near free pass so many in such debate seems to give.

On the other hand, I'm not comfortable with permanent condemnation that can't be overturned, and for all what I say that some people REALLY DO deserves to die, I'm reluctant about giving to a system the right to kill.

So, well...