The Death Penalty

[Dave]

I don't understand how killing is punishment. I mean, the death penalty is called capital punishment, yet there is no instructive or deterring purpose to it. At least not to the one recieving it.

 

Killing, like theft, is amoral. It is the situation in which those actions take place that determine it's rightness or wrongness. The fact that we identify those things as wrong is because they tend to be more often than not, according to the mores of the societies they occur in.

Are you sure you want to use the word "amoral" there?

1. not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral.

2. having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong

Most societies do find the purposeful killing another human being as an immoral, not amoral, act. And there is no deterring or instructive purpose to it. It has been proven beyound a doubt that there is no deterrent properties in capital punishment. The person can be locked away for life if need be. There is no need to kill, it costs too much money and just cheapens life for the rest of us.

 

 

Oh, killing them is not punishing them? In a sentence or two, I get bored easily, tell me how killing is not wrong. You don't get to choose a specific instance of killing since your statement was that "killing is not wrong."

Ok. Killing is amoral, therefore it's not wrong.

Then why do you want to kill those that kill?

[redross]

Most societies do find the purposeful killing another human being as an immoral, not amoral, act. And there is no deterring or instructive purpose to it. It has been proven beyound a doubt that there is no deterrent properties in capital punishment. The person can be locked away for life if need be. There is no need to kill, it costs too much money and just cheapens life for the rest of us.

 

Then why do you want to kill those that kill?

 

We already covered the issue of cost: just imagine a society in which killing a criminal is dirt cheap.

 

I want to kill criminals because they deserve to be killed and we forever rid them of our society.

 

How does killing a criminal cheapen life for the rest of us?

[dibby]

Surely if society kills someone for murder, then you don,t actually teach people anything about how you want them to behave.....except to reinforce the idea that killing is an acceptable way to get what you want.

 

It is not reasonable. The best way to teach is to demonstrate the way you would like people to behave.

 

Society can be protected by imprisoning individuals who commit crime...there is no need to kill, and therefore create further victims ie. the killed criminals' spouse, children, relatives and friends.

[Amanda]

That's the problem, people don't make the best decision they can at the time. They know murder is wrong, they know what will happen if they murder someone. That is not the best decision. It never is.

Asimov, at that particular moment, it was the best decision to them. THINK about it!

So what is inherently wrong with that? That's Amanda's point, that perhaps it would be more effective if we did indeed shift our focus from the pound of cure, to the ounce of prevention.

Thank you HuaiDan! It's not about excuses, it's about finding solutions for preventing it to happen in the future.

 

They still know that molestation is wrong, so what's your point? They are aware of right and wrong, they are aware (even more so) that molestation is wrong, yet they do it anyways. You close the circle by stopping them from molesting other children. Ending the cycle by ending the molester.

Asimov, they don't necessarily know it's wrong, as they do know it's illegal. There is no master profile for a molester, yet there seems to be predominant threads. They tend to be abused as children, taught childhood has no value. (Smack! You're just a kid, you don't pay the bills around here! Smack! Now go do what I told you to do!) They are often isolated kids, and do not develop adequate socialization skills. Once an adult, hormones raging, poor socialization skills, acute stress, children have no value... a pedaphile is created. Some are just narcissistic, another outcome of childhood dysfunction. Yes, they still must be accountable/responsible for their behavior!

The criminal may be mentally ill, have been a victim of abuse themselves, socially excluded, genetically predisposed etc. We just do not know enough about why human beings do the bad things they do sometimes. Alot more research , study and understanding are needed.

If we could prevent every immoral thing from happening then there would be no need for a moral code other than to let us know which acts to prevent. And the purpose of morals isn't to make society better, it's to make society function and sustainable. Unless you're a utilitarian

We are not aware of all the aspects that create atrocities. Maybe we should pursue prevention as our main focus... instead of so much emphasis on the punishment aspect. Look at the recidivism rate in prisons to see the success rate of that method. I think in Florida, it is 80%! :ohmy:

 

Capital punishment? My question is that in a country of limited resources (funding), do we support/supervise these sociopathic killers and say no to a child that needs life saving surgery because of lack of financial resources?

[Dave]

Then why do you want to kill those that kill?

We already covered the issue of cost: just imagine a society in which killing a criminal is dirt cheap.

Great non sequitur, but we are in a society that thinks nothing of killing someone they don't like.

I want to kill criminals because they deserve to be killed and we forever rid them of our society.

So, killing anyone that one believes deserves to be killed is alright. I believe that jaywalkers should be killed since they actually endanger the lives of others. It would then be alright for me to go around and kill them.

How does killing a criminal cheapen life for the rest of us?

Your line above explains it all.

[Taphophilia]

I think I get it.

 

We have all committed an immoral act, therefore we all deserve to die.

 

We are not killing criminals we are killing ourselves. We seek to destroy that part of ourselves that repulses us.

[redross]

Then why do you want to kill those that kill?

We already covered the issue of cost: just imagine a society in which killing a criminal is dirt cheap.

Great non sequitur, but we are in a society that thinks nothing of killing someone they don't like.

I want to kill criminals because they deserve to be killed and we forever rid them of our society.

So, killing anyone that one believes deserves to be killed is alright. I believe that jaywalkers should be killed since they actually endanger the lives of others. It would then be alright for me to go around and kill them.

How does killing a criminal cheapen life for the rest of us?

Your line above explains it all.

 

You're great at talking without saying anything. Your beliefs about what is moral/immoral have nothing to do with anything, what is moral/immoral has everything to do with everything. I'll ask again in the hopes that you'll actually answer the question: how does killing a criminal cheapen life for the rest of us?

 

I think I get it.

 

We have all committed an immoral act, therefore we all deserve to die.

 

We are not killing criminals we are killing ourselves. We seek to destroy that part of ourselves that repulses us.

 

I highly disagree. I know many people who have not committed immoral acts. And no, we are killing criminals; I seek to destroy the people that repulse me by their immoral behavior.

[Amanda]

I highly disagree. I know many people who have not committed immoral acts. And no, we are killing criminals; I seek to destroy the people that repulse me by their immoral behavior.

Ghandi said that an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.

[Taphophilia]

Man I suck at this.

 

OK...Here's another try...

 

Capital Punishment is not handed out evenly or fairly. The vast majority of people who are executed belong to what is deemed the lower castes of the society. The higher up the social ladder the criminal is, the more likely they will not be executed. We have placed a value on human life depending on where a person fits into the social constructs of the society. All human life should have equal value.

[redross]

Man I suck at this.

 

OK...Here's another try...

 

Capital Punishment is not handed out evenly or fairly. The vast majority of people who are executed belong to what is deemed the lower castes of the society. The higher up the social ladder the criminal is, the more likely they will not be executed. We have placed a value on human life depending on where a person fits into the social constructs of the society. All human life should have equal value.

 

First of all, we've already established that we're dealing strictly with the morality of the death penalty, not the fairness of its execution (assume a universally fair application)

 

Second, all human life does have equal value up until the point one of those lives performs an immoral act. Socio-economic factors have nothing to do with the morality of an act, they only serve as an excuse. If being poor and coming from a broken home was the reason that people commit crimes, then everyone from a poor and broken home would commit a crime, and that is not the case. It is a copout to absolve (or relieve in any way) the responsibility of one's actions based on the conditions of their upbringing.

 

I highly disagree. I know many people who have not committed immoral acts. And no, we are killing criminals; I seek to destroy the people that repulse me by their immoral behavior.

Ghandi said that an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.

 

Ghandi was wrong

[Dave]

I think I get it.

 

We have all committed an immoral act, therefore we all deserve to die.

But then the person that kills you committs an immoral act and deserves to die, and then the person that kills him has also committed an immoral act....... ad nauseum......We are not killing criminals we are killing ourselves. We seek to destroy that part of ourselves that repulses us.By destroying what repulses them, they become what repulses them. They get justice mixed up with retribution.

 

 

....ou're great at talking without saying anything. ....

I usually quit reading at the first ad hominem.

 

 

....Second, all human life does have equal value up until the point one of those lives performs an immoral act. ....

and that's where you go wrong. Since killing is an immoral act, then killing someone, anyone, is an immoral act. Everyone does have equal value no matter what. It's an intrinsic value that cannot be take away on a whim.

[redross]

I think I get it.

 

We have all committed an immoral act, therefore we all deserve to die.

But then the person that kills you committs an immoral act and deserves to die, and then the person that kills him has also committed an immoral act....... ad nauseum......

We are not killing criminals we are killing ourselves. We seek to destroy that part of ourselves that repulses us.By destroying what repulses them, they become what repulses them. They get justice mixed up with retribution.

 

 

....ou're great at talking without saying anything. ....

I usually quit reading at the first ad hominem.

 

No. If someone commits an immoral act then they have absolved themselves of all moral status. If someone has no moral status, then any act directed towards them is amoral. Therefore, if I kill someone who has no moral status then my action is not immoral.

 

On a side note, the satisfaction I take in seeing criminals suffer or being put to death has no bearing on it's moral right/wrongness. Retribution and justice may overlap, but they are not the same. Justice is, obviously, justified. Retribution may be morally justified (say you're in a position of required authority and are in charge of executing the criminal who raped your wife) but it is not equated with justice.

[Taphophilia]

That's not what I meant, but I understand your point.

 

I didn't mean poverty breeds crime, I meant the perceived value of said person's life depends upon where they fit in the social hierarchy of the society.

 

If person A commits a murder and is from a lower social status, that person will more likely receive capital punishment.

 

If person B commits the same murder the exact same way, the higher up the social ladder the person is, the less likely they will be executed.

 

Same crime, two different people.

 

I think that would also apply to the victim, the value of their life would depend on where they fit in the caste system of the society.

 

One college educated professional woman has more value than a crack addicted prostitute.

 

So wouldn't there be a morality scale dictated by the perceived value of not only said criminals life, but also the perceived value of the victim?

[redross]

Ahh, I see what you mean and I agree to some extend.

 

I do believe that we perceive people to have different moral status depending on their place in society, but I do not believe that people actually have differing moral status based on personal wealth or well-being. A drug-addict who murders is just as immoral as a millionaire tycoon who murders.

[Dave]

No. If someone commits an immoral act then they have absolved themselves of all moral status....

No, they have not.

[redross]

No. If someone commits an immoral act then they have absolved themselves of all moral status....

No, they have not.

 

No? And why not?

[Taphophilia]

Isn't it the society that determines what is moral and what isn't?

 

Scott Peterson was a person of higher value in society. It wasn't his value that determined the degree of immorality of his crime, it was who his victim was.

 

If he had murdered a crack addicted prostitute, would he have received the death penalty? A few years in prison, yes, but not his life.

[redross]

So what? We already covered this: the law does not equal morality. Just because a society prosecutes or punishes someone a certain way does not mean that the society was right/just/moral in doing so.

[Taphophilia]

I wasn't talking about law at all. Who or what determines what is moral and what isn't? I thought it was society, is it something else?

[Dave]

No. If someone commits an immoral act then they have absolved themselves of all moral status....

No, they have not.

No? And why not?

Nice try. You made the claim, I disagreed with it. It is up to you to support your claim, not for me to disprove it. You offered no support for your claim so I see no reason have to back up my disagreement with it.

 

 

So what? We already covered this: the law does not equal morality. Just because a society prosecutes or punishes someone a certain way does not mean that the society was right/just/moral in doing so.

Wait a minute.... didn't someone here claim that capital punishment wasn't punishment?

[redross]

Sort of. What determines the morality/immorality of an act depends on what society needs to survive. Every society needs prohibitions on murder, theft, etc. so in every society those things are immoral. This is not meant to suggest that relativism is true.

 

On a side note, it's true that the victim's value plays a part in the morality of an action. If the victim possesses no moral status, then that would make any act performed against them amoral. If they did possess moral status, then any act performed against them would be immoral. In this case we are not counting societal value (per se), but moral value.

 

Morals are something that naturally progress (or evolve if you will) as a society learns what it needs to make it survive. This is what I believe. To see other opinions, visit my thread regarding the three tiers of ethics (hehe. go shameless promotion!)

 

Back to your point, as I stated before, society's perception of different classes and financial brackets do not contribute to morality. They only contribute to societal perception. I wish to make clear that it is not societal perception that affects morality, but societal need.

 

 

 

No. If someone commits an immoral act then they have absolved themselves of all moral status....

No, they have not.

No? And why not?

Nice try. You made the claim, I disagreed with it. It is up to you to support your claim, not for me to disprove it. You offered no support for your claim so I see no reason have to back up my disagreement with it.

 

The very fact that they commit an immoral act absolves them of any moral status. I backed that statement up in previous posts in this thread. Regardless, why not back up your claim? It's what this thread is about.

[Taphophilia]

Do we need to execute criminals in order for our society to survive? No, we don't need to execute them in order for our society to survive, since we have better technology to keep them separate from the society, so wouldn't that make executing criminals immoral?

 

Similarly, I can see that in a society like the Western Frontier, where it was important for the survival of that society to execute criminals, capitol punishment would then be moral.

[redross]

Do we need to execute criminals in order for our society to survive? No, we don't need to execute them in order for our society to survive, since we have better technology to keep them separate from the society, so wouldn't that make executing criminals immoral?

 

Similarly, I can see that in a society like the Western Frontier, where it was important for the survival of that society to execute criminals, capitol punishment would then be moral.

 

True, we don't need to execute criminals in order to survive, but that doesn't mean the criminals don't deserve it. It also doesn't mean that it won't help eliminate any chance of re-offense.

 

It is not immoral to execute criminals since they have absolved their moral status, regardless of their contribution to the survival of a society.

[Taphophilia]

 

True, we don't need to execute criminals in order to survive, but that doesn't mean the criminals don't deserve it. It also doesn't mean that it won't help eliminate any chance of re-offense.

 

It is not immoral to execute criminals since they have absolved their moral status, regardless of their contribution to the survival of a society.

 

So, once they absolve their moral status they can't get it back? It's a done deal?

 

As far as what is deserved, child molesters should be taken to the nearest public square and shot, but that's is my opinoin, and I don't think it's moral.

[redross]

 

True, we don't need to execute criminals in order to survive, but that doesn't mean the criminals don't deserve it. It also doesn't mean that it won't help eliminate any chance of re-offense.

 

It is not immoral to execute criminals since they have absolved their moral status, regardless of their contribution to the survival of a society.

 

So, once they absolve their moral status they can't get it back? It's a done deal?

 

As far as what is deserved, child molesters should be taken to the nearest public square and shot, but that's is my opinoin, and I don't think it's moral.

 

Whether they can get it back is an issue I'm unsure about, although I'm leaning toward 'no'. I think the question someone should ask is 'did this person perform this immoral action?'. If the answer is yes, then case closed.

 

I think that (and things far worse than that) would not only be moral, but deserved.