Sassenach wrote:Brad, that isn't an answer. The question is what constitutes appropriate or sufficient punishment. Opinions will always vary on that question, and there isn't any objective standard by which it can be judged. This is why the two of us will never agree on the issue of capital punishment.

I misunderstood Owen's question. I thought he was asking my opinion on which of those 4 choices justice was.

I will stick with my example and say that the two men who raped and murdered the three CT ladies deserve the death penalty.

Not for revenge or to make a point. Because innocent life is precious. To callously disregard that forfeits your own.

I know we will not agree. You hold the criminals life and the 3 ladies life at the same value. On that I cannot agree. My God can, and the criminals can atone for their actions to Him.

That's actually rather insulting, and suggests that you haven't been paying attention to what I've been saying. I'm doing my very best to remain respectful in this thread, as you may have noticed, but if you're going to start using arguments like "I care about the victims and you don't" then frankly you can go to hell.

Sassenach wrote:That's actually rather insulting, and suggests that you haven't been paying attention to what I've been saying. I'm doing my very best to remain respectful in this thread, as you may have noticed, but if you're going to start using arguments like "I care about the victims and you don't" then frankly you can go to hell.

Saqss, I did not say that. I said you hold the two at the same value. I do not. I hold one higher. If there is any degredation of the value of a human life, it would be mine.

I think you have the same value for all life. If I am wrong about that, I apologize. Sincerely, I do.

As it happens I probably do place a lower value on the life of a cold-blooded murderer than I would on the life of an innocent schoolgirl or whatever. That isn't the point because that kind of accounting exercise isn't how I arrive at my position.

You presented it as if your position were somehow superior ethically because it was more victim-centered. Maybe that's not what you meant, in which case apologies, but it certainly comes across that way. In reality everybody cares about the victims of these crimes and everybody wants to see the perpetrators very harshly punished. The problem is that we have differing conceptions of what a 'just' punishment would be. My personal view is that life imprisonment is more just, you think that justice demands execution for grievous crimes. Neither of us is necessarily right or wrong, it's impossible because what we're talking about is a subjective judgement.

This is why I prefer to take the notion of justice out of the equation. If we accept that my sense of justice will differ from yours, which will differ from Steve's which will differ from Ricky's and so on then we need to look instead to other aspects of the debate. For me, the big two here are the risk of miscarriages of justice and the question of whether capital punishment is a deterrence to murder. In both of these I think the argument weighs more heavily towards my position. There really isn't any evidence that capital punishment has any discernible effect on murder rates. When you think it through, there's no reason why it should. People don't plan on getting caught when they commit these crimes, and they know that if they are caught they face a very stiff punishment anyway. It would take a very hard-nosed bastard not to be deterred by the prospect of life behind bars, the kind of hard nosed bastard who probably isn't deterred by the death penalty either. So that leaves me back where I started with all this, the risk of miscarriages of justice..

I do understand your point when you say that there are many cases where guilt is not in any doubt and it's only in these cases that you support capital punishment. That's fine if you're talking on a personal level, but it doesn't really scale up to a national judicial system. Maybe the jury will not be comprised of sensible people who are able to make rational judgements of the evidence, maybe the police will have been corrupt, planted evidence or beaten a confession out of somebody (these things do happen). More prosaically, maybe some way down the line new witnesses will come forward or new developments in technology (DNA analysis for example) will cast doubt on what was presented in court at the time as incontrovertible evidence. All of these things happen, if not regularly then regularly enough to give me pause. I don't think we can ever guarantee that innocent men will not be put to death so long as we continue putting men to death, it's as simple as that. Because the concept of justice is an inherently subjective one and because the issue of deterrence is a red herring, this is the point which carries most weight with me.

Owen asked what I thought justice was. This is my opinion only. Thank you for yours. No harm meant, Sir.

bbauska

I did not say that. I said you hold the two at the same value. I do not. I hold one higher

You can hold a higher value for a child than for a murderer.
But still hold the value of the murderer's life above the threshold where you are willing to allow the state to end it...

If the lives of innocents were held in high enough regard, perhaps you'd be willing to have the state enact effective gun laws that would slow down the rate of mass shootings?

I find it highly ironic that those who favor the death penalty, almost always also are opposed to effective gun laws. In one case the lives of innocents hold so much value that they must be avenged. In the other the lives of innocents don't hold enough value to justify infringing the current right to arm.

rickyp wrote:bbauska

I did not say that. I said you hold the two at the same value. I do not. I hold one higher

You can hold a higher value for a child than for a murderer.
But still hold the value of the murderer's life above the threshold where you are willing to allow the state to end it...

If the lives of innocents were held in high enough regard, perhaps you'd be willing to have the state enact effective gun laws that would slow down the rate of mass shootings?

I find it highly ironic that those who favor the death penalty, almost always also are opposed to effective gun laws. In one case the lives of innocents hold so much value that they must be avenged. In the other the lives of innocents don't hold enough value to justify infringing the current right to arm.

Good Day, Sir.

rickyp wrote:bbauska

I did not say that. I said you hold the two at the same value. I do not. I hold one higher

You can hold a higher value for a child than for a murderer.
But still hold the value of the murderer's life above the threshold where you are willing to allow the state to end it...

If the lives of innocents were held in high enough regard, perhaps you'd be willing to have the state enact effective gun laws that would slow down the rate of mass shootings?

Specifically, what law or laws would have prevented the shooting in Oregon? In Roanoke? In Newtown? I'll wait.

I find it highly ironic that those who favor the death penalty, almost always also are opposed to effective gun laws. In one case the lives of innocents hold so much value that they must be avenged. In the other the lives of innocents don't hold enough value to justify infringing the current right to arm.

There's zero irony.

The death penalty is for those guilty of the most heinous crimes.

What laws would prevent said crimes? Specifically.

bbauska wrote:Owen asked what I thought justice was. This is my opinion only. Thank you for yours. No harm meant, Sir.

As you were replying directly to me, I have to say I am unconvinced by your defence.

You are not answering what your opinion of what justice is when you tell me (or anyone else) what they think.

As it is, I do not hold them to the same value. Murderers deserve to have their rights infringed, just not the most basic of them (including a right to life).

Moreover, because systems of human justice will always be flawed, we can never escape the possibility that an innocent person will be convicted - even what looks like cast iron evidence like DNA can be wrong (or wrongly handled).

Ricky:

I find it highly ironic that those who favor the death penalty, almost always also are opposed to effective gun laws. In one case the lives of innocents hold so much value that they must be avenged. In the other the lives of innocents don't hold enough value to justify infringing the current right to arm.

I am in favor of more gun control AND believe in the death penalty. Our society should have enough confidence to say that certain crimes are so heinous that the society takes from you your life because that is the highest possible humane penalty.

Danivon:

Murderers deserve to have their rights infringed, just not the most basic of them (including a right to life).

If you commit certain crimes, you lose even your most basic right.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:Owen asked what I thought justice was. This is my opinion only. Thank you for yours. No harm meant, Sir.

As you were replying directly to me, I have to say I am unconvinced by your defence.

You are not answering what your opinion of what justice is when you tell me (or anyone else) what they think.

As it is, I do not hold them to the same value. Murderers deserve to have their rights infringed, just not the most basic of them (including a right to life).

Thank you for your opinion.

Ray Jay wrote:Danivon:

Murderers deserve to have their rights infringed, just not the most basic of them (including a right to life).

If you commit certain crimes, you lose even your most basic right.

Apologies, I added an extra paragraph without realising you (and the abrupt bbauska) had replied.

What is your view on the point that Sass and Freeman have expressed, which is that this also unfortunately leads to the death of non-murderers?

Sassenach wrote:That's actually rather insulting, and suggests that you haven't been paying attention to what I've been saying. I'm doing my very best to remain respectful in this thread, as you may have noticed, but if you're going to start using arguments like "I care about the victims and you don't" then frankly you can go to hell.

Let's refrain from using quote marks when we are not quoting. That's worse than insulting, and is certainly not respectful. .

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:Danivon:

Murderers deserve to have their rights infringed, just not the most basic of them (including a right to life).

If you commit certain crimes, you lose even your most basic right.

Apologies, I added an extra paragraph without realising you (and the abrupt bbauska) had replied.

What is your view on the point that Sass and Freeman have expressed, which is that this also unfortunately leads to the death of non-murderers?

I'm certainly against the death penalty in error, and I do agree with the point that human institutions are very good at committing errors.

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:Danivon:

Murderers deserve to have their rights infringed, just not the most basic of them (including a right to life).

If you commit certain crimes, you lose even your most basic right.

Apologies, I added an extra paragraph without realising you (and the abrupt bbauska) had replied.

What is your view on the point that Sass and Freeman have expressed, which is that this also unfortunately leads to the death of non-murderers.

I'll go.

I think the death penalty should be applied only in the most heinous cases and only when there is sufficient evidence to eliminate all doubt. Again, the CT case serves as a model in its cruelty and the rock-solid identification of the guilty.