Death Penalty for cut and dried cases?

[arildno]

This is not true.

Some rights - human rights - are inalienable

Which is why that human rights system is, for the most part as practiced today..bogus

 

[Gokul43201]

It was responded long ago. It DOES NOT. The death sentence is applied by a jury of your peers (i.e, the ppl, not the state)

Yet it is true that a jury in Texas may sentence a person to death, while a jury in Michigan (or Australia) can not. Clearly, the state plays a role in determining whether or not a jury may be allowed to put someone to death.

 

[DanP]

This is not true.

Some rights - human rights - are inalienable

The practical view is very simple, rights are not unalienable, but only the possessor of the right can itself renounce the right, i.e it cannot be taken from him from any other 3rd party, private citizen or government. However, if he initiates foul play against another member of the society, he alienates himself from the rights to a part of his life required to pay the dues.

We can't be soft to criminals. We have a duty to our families, to our beloved ones and to the society in general to protect them, and keep them from harm's way. Since in most heinous crimes the perpetrator alienates himself from his rights, we can in good faith and without loosing any sleep ask for their execution and proceed with legal homicide, if such a sentence was given.

 

[Gokul43201]

(emphasis mine)

Since in most heinous crimes the perpetrator alienates himself from his rights, we can in good faith and without loosing any sleep ask for their execution and proceed with legal homicide, if such a sentence was given.

Why is it that only the most heinous crimes count? What system determines which crimes lead to the denouncement of which rights?

 

[DanP]

Yet it is true that a jury in Texas may sentence a person to death, while a jury in Michigan (or Australia) can not. Clearly, the state plays a role in determining whether or not a jury may be allowed to put someone to death.

Actually, the problem is more general. In my view the legislative only serves the role to establish the maximum bounds of retributive punishment. And this is a political issue. It represent the will of the commonwealth, since the lawmakers are elected by the ppl.
In a democracy if you elect representatives which opposes the death penalty, and promise to forfeit it, it only means that majority of the humans in that region opposes this form of punishment.

The point is, neither legislative or executive have the power to take a live.

 

[DanP]

(emphasis mine)Why is it that only the most heinous crimes count? What system determines which crimes lead to the denouncement of which rights?

For the very simple reason that the punishment is, and rightly so, commensurate with the crime.

The systems is the will of the ppl, through free election of members of the community in the lawmaking organisms of the state.

 

[Gokul43201]

Actually, the problem is more general. In my view the legislative only serves the role to establish the maximum bounds of retributive punishment. And this is a political issue. It represent the will of the commonwealth, since the lawmakers are elected by the ppl.
In a democracy if you elect representatives which opposes the death penalty, and promise to forfeit it, it only means that majority of the humans in that region opposes this form of punishment.

The point is, neither legislative or executive have the power to take a live.

One can thusly describe any action of government as an action of the people. This makes it meaningless to even talk about an action of government.

 

[Gokul43201]

For the very simple reason that the punishment is, and rightly so, commensurate with the crime.

What determines whether a punishment is commensurate with the crime? By your argument below, it's nothing more than the whims of the people on any given day.

The systems is the will of the ppl, through free election of members of the community in the lawmaking organisms of the state.

So, it really has nothing to do with a rationale linking your actions to the inalienable nature of your rights. If "the ppl, through free election of members of the community in the lawmaking organisms of the state" feel like jaywalking, having homosexual sex, or disagreeing with an opinion of the government deserves a death penalty, then so be it. Heinous or not does matter.

 

[arildno]

It should first be noted what, historically, was meant by "inalienable".

It means something that cannot be handed over to someone else from the one possessing it.

You may alienate your right to driving your own car by renting it out, but you cannot sell yourself into a state of slavery.

Thus, "inalienable rights " means that there exist rights that cannot be transferred from on person to another by means of a contract.

Inalienability is, therefore, a limitation upon what sort of contracts are to be regarded as valid contracts, and which are not.

Punishment is reserved upon them who refuse the validity of contracts as such, i.e, who has outlawed themselves, in some manner.

 

[DanP]

One can thusly describe any action of government as an action of the people. This makes it meaningless to even talk about an action of government.

The executive (government) has wide powers and liberty, but their bounds are also limited by the lawmakers. The actions of the government are not the actions of the ppl. However, the bounds of those actions are set by the freely and democratically ppl elected in lawmaking organisms.

THe division of the powers in a state exists exactly because governments needs to have bounds set in their actions, and because the ppl must have protection from potential abusses of power from government.

 

[skeptic2]

This makes no sense. First you say punishments are deterrents for law abiding citizens , then you say for gang members punishments are not a deterrent. This makes no sense whatsoever.

Frankly it seems a little obvious to me that to the extent that gang members murder, harsh punishments, including the death penalty, are not deterrents. People who are mostly law abiding I think do, for the most part, weigh the risks versus the benefits of murdering somebody before they decide to do it or not.

Second I don't know why you insist on the point that "punishment is not a deterrent". What good does it makes ? DO you propose not to punish anyone because the deterrent effect is minimal ? Let criminals roam free ?

Perhaps a better question is, why does punishment seem to be a deterrent for some people but not for others?

Let's go back to post #7.

People who commit crimes have at least one of two beliefs that people who do not commit crimes don't have. They are:

1. They won't get caught.
If they believe they won't get caught then it doesn't matter what the punishment is, it is ineffective in deterring the crime. This also seems fairly obvious to me. Only when one believes there is a reasonable chance of getting caught and punished is there a deterrence.

2. They are justified in committing the crime.
I think if you asked the average wife beater why he did it, he would say something to the effect of "She deserved it." I think this is even more applicable in murder of which many cases are the result of passion or retribution.

No, I do not propose to let criminals roam free. I did say that society must be protected from dangerous people. But I think the idea that crime can be reduced by increasing the severity of the punishment is flawed because it does not address those two beliefs.

One way of addressing those beliefs is through education. I think our schools should offer a civics class that would teach at the middle and high school levels, the expectations of society including the laws relevant to the students and why those laws are in place. They should also be taught how the criminal justice system works and what typical punishments are for offenses. For instance I don't think many teens realize that a shoplifting conviction after the age of 18 goes on their permanent record and will affect their getting and keeping a job and even what kind of job they'll be able to get.

 

[DanP]

What determines whether a punishment is commensurate with the crime? By your argument below, it's nothing more than the whims of the people on any given day.

If you consider yourself as a human voting on the whim of the day, yes, this is so. Then again,
if this is your civic sense, you deserve anything is coming to you from the ones you voted for.

 

[Gokul43201]

If you consider yourself as a human voting on the whim of the day, yes, this is so. Then again,
if this is your civic sense, you deserve anything is coming to you from the ones you voted for.

Care to make a rational defense of your argument instead of wagging your finger at me?

What I consider myself to be need have no bearing on what I consider the majority of the voting population to be. And the ones I voted for do not make policy aimed only at me, their policy affects those that did not vote for them too.

 

[DanP]

What I consider myself to be need have no bearing on what I consider the majority of the voting population to be. And the ones I voted for do not make policy aimed only at me, their policy affects those that did not vote for them too.

The basis of democracy is free elections. If you cannot identify yourself with the majority of the voters, and you feel insufficiently represented by the opposition, jump the hypothetical "Berlin Wall"

 

[Gokul43201]

(That's hardly a relevant argument to the point being made here, and not even a sensible one, IMO, but I shan't follow that line of discussion).

So it seems you admit that there is, in fact, no rational construct for determining what kind of crime denounces what kind of right, other than the whims of the people at the given time.

 

[DanP]

So it seems you admit that there is, in fact, no rational construct for determining what kind of crime denounces what kind of right, other than the whims of the people at the given time.

You are deeply mistaken. It appears to me that you are the one who looks at the elective and lawmaking processes as a simple "whim" of the masses, while the "elite, who knows better", is disgusted by the majority.

 

[DanP]

(That's hardly a relevant argument to the point being made here, and not even a sensible one, IMO, but I shan't follow that line of discussion).

Excuse me, but your opinion that lawmaking process is a "whim" is hardly a rational argument as well and it's IMO an elitist PoV.

 

[Gokul43201]

You are deeply mistaken.

Thanks for the unqualified assertion. Let me know if you have more than that.

It appears to me that you are the one who looks at the elective and lawmaking processes as a simple "whim" of the masses,

I said nothing about the lawmaking process...

while the "elite, who knows better", is disgusted by the majority.

...nor anything about any kind of "elite".

 

[DanP]

Thanks for the unqualified assertion. Let me know if you have more than that.

Your unqualified assertions on the lawmaking process as a "whim" deserves no better answer. Let me know if you have more of that.

 

[arildno]

Frankly it seems a little obvious to me that to the extent that gang members murder, harsh punishments, including the death penalty, are not deterrents.

SO?
Deterrence does NOT constitute the justification for punishment!

 

[DanP]

I said nothing about the lawmaking process...

Since the bounds of punishments are established through lawmaking processes, in any democratic country, you actually did :P

 

[Gokul43201]

In any case, since you do not deny that there is no rational construct which determines what rights are to be absolved due to what crimes, I shall assume (until you demonstrate otherwise) that you are in agreement with it.

If homosexual sex is a crime in Texas today, but not tomorrow, and it's not a crime in New Mexico, Oklahoma or Louisiana today - I'd say that determination is clearly a representation of a whim rather than some fundamental relationship between actions and rights.

 

[Gokul43201]

Since the bounds of punishments are established through lawmaking processes, in any democratic country, you actually did :P

Sure, but I didn't call "lawmaking" a whim (whether or not I think it is), only "electing".

Why are you getting so hung up on the word "whim"? Would you prefer if I called it a "tasteful sensibility"?

 

[DanP]

In any case, since you do not deny that there is no rational construct which determines what rights are to be absolved due to what crimes, I shall assume (until you demonstrate otherwise) that you are in agreement with it.

This is politics, not mathematics . I do not have to demonstrate you anything, I only have to vote for a political group who is powerful enough to support the ideas of my social group.

You seem to insist that lawmaking process is irrational. Very well. I do not agree with you. I denied it time and again. But you can assume I do if it makes you happy.

 

[DanP]

Sure, but I didn't call "lawmaking" a whim (whether or not I think it is), only "electing".

Whats the alternative ? Give the power to a group of "powerful intelligent , god like beings, who know better", even if they are 1% of the elective mass ?

I prefer the elective process of today. It's as fair as we can have for the moment. It's the basis of democracy.

 

[Gokul43201]

This is politics, not mathematics . I do not have to demonstrate you anything, I only have to vote for a political group who is powerful enough to support the ideas of my social group.

This is a discussion forum, not a polling station.

Anyway, you've said what you have to say, and I have nothing more to add.

(Edited to add) Except this: I too prefer the elective system we have today, but that doesn't change my opinion on whether or not it is a system that reflects the whims of a population.

 

[skeptic2]

SO?
Deterrence does NOT constitute the justification for punishment!

This is an interesting topic.

And, YES, DanP, "deterrence" does not constitute the legitimizing basis for punishments, since then we could equally well adopt the Draconian legal code.

Nor is it relevant, in the perspective of deterrence, that the the one to be punished is ACTUALLY guilty, because you can get a very strong deterrent effect by punishing an innocent instead.


In short, deterrence is a secondary consideration, rather than a primary one.

It [punishment] does not have a "purpose".

Rather, through his crime, the criminal has fewer rights left than the non-criminal, and the imposition of penalties is an expression of this manufactured inequality of rights.

An inequality of rights manufactured by the action of the criminal himself.

We disagree. Without a purpose, punishment is merely cruel.

 

[DanP]

If homosexual sex is a crime in Texas today, but not tomorrow, and it's not a crime in New Mexico, Oklahoma or Louisiana today - I'd say that determination is clearly a representation of a whim rather than some fundamental relationship between actions and rights.

The problem with this is that you seem to look at the issue as some kind of mathematical equation or a fundamental physical law. It is not.

It is social and political in nature. Various cultures and groups have different values, and they will go to different lengths to protect those rights. The relationships between those things represent the underlining values of the community. They are not "whims", more often then not they represent centuries of tradition and refinement in laws.

 

[DanP]

This is a discussion forum, not a polling station.

I agree, but then maybe you should present more rational arguments than assertions "demonstrate or I assume you agree with me". What you assume is really not my business, but when someone says "I don't agree with you", really, take his word :P

 

[DanP]

We disagree. Without a purpose, punishment is merely cruel.

Foul play causes a social imbalance. The main purpose of the punishment is reestablishing the social balance.

Punishment does not have to be morally loaded with corrective or preventive effects. It seems that you believe that punishments are cruel and they have no reason to exist if they lack a determent effect. Which is false. Reestablishing the balance is enough purpose.

 

[arildno]

Foul play causes a social imbalance. The main purpose of the punishment is reestablishing the social balance.

I'd rather say punishment is a form of an exterioriation of the implicit social contract, in that by punishing, criminals AND non-criminals alike, becomes aware of the contract's existence.

Whether it can be said to "re-establish" anything, besides the belief that the system is working, is a matter upon which I harbour some doubts.

The overall justification of punishment, however, lies in the reduced rights of the criminal, the reduction occurring at the moment of the crime.
(we can do unto the criminal actions that we cannot do upon non-criminals, because the criminal has fewer rights (left).)

Further elements of the justification will determine, for example, whether or not a deserved punishment should be implemented.

 

[DanP]

Whether it can be said to "re-establish" anything, besides the belief that the system is working, is a matter upon which I harbour some doubts.

Im really curious what are those doubts. I find this very interesting.

 

[arildno]

Im really curious what are those doubts. I find this very interesting.

Well, the "social imbalance" argument typically tries to argue that the criminal has gained some sort of "advantage", that the punishment then re-appropriates.

This imagery works, I suppose, in the case of theft, but what "advantage" has the criminal gained by, say, a rape, that is "removed" by the punishment?

From my point of view, violating others' rights makes you an outlaw; upon the moment of the crime, you've already lost a number of rights, and are of less legal worth than the non-criminal.

And then, it is up to the society to find out how to treat that person according to his reduced status (according to the principle: "to each his due").

They MIGHT treat him just as before (non-punishment, or the granting of pardon, for example), but they are entitled to other actions against him as well.

 

[DanP]

Well, the "social imbalance" argument typically tries to argue that the criminal has gained some sort of "advantage", that the punishment then re-appropriates.

This is interesting. In my "imagery" the things worked differently. The society has taken damage when the crime was executed, and by punishment the loss is alleviated. I never thought that the perpetrator gains an advantage, which must be re-appropriated to the society. Somehow diametrically opposed to what you described. And I have to clarify here, I talk about society, not the individual victim. The loss of the victim can
be compensated with a civil action complementing the criminal process.

I agree with the outlaw issue.

 

[arildno]

The society has taken damage when the crime was executed, and by punishment the loss is alleviated.

Well, that is another imbalance argument.

The problem I have with that is the idea that society is somehow "enriched" by meting out punishment.

From what I see, we have a double loss situation, for the (punished) criminal AND society, both gets poorer.


As I see it, that double loss is incurred at the moment of the crime.

To punish justly, i.e, treating the criminal in a way according to his reduced status, but that would be inadmissible to treat a non-criminal might, possibly, offer some consolation to the victims/society t large, might induce some regrets in the criminal, but none of this provides the justification of punishment.

For example, a lot of criminals DO regret their actions sincerely&immensely, and would never think ever of doing anything like that again.

That does not, however, on its own, restore their status of equal legal worth with the non-criminal (and hence, inadmissibility of punishment).

If the society is to be said to be "enriched", it lies in exercising the greater scope of freedom of action upon the criminal that his self-inflicted loss of rights has given society.