What do you think, should there be a death penalty?
Perssonalni I am against it,because of these things:
1.Death penalty vs liftime jail (well death penalty is kind of reward in this case)
2. How are we bether then him/her? Where is ours moral?
3. We must think about moral of executor.
After all this I am still against death penalty.
You kill him and then he doesn't fell anything. But if you have too live whole life in a misrable prison witouth freedom ,well that is a hard punisment. Is a life of a being worth much if he doesn't have freedom?
Well, it isn't. The purpose of these laws, or any punishment, for that matter, is to reform offenders. It is not to seek retribution against them.
A) By that logic the death penalty shouldn't exist, nor should life in prison.
B) Perhaps you'd have preferred I use the term "discipline"? Either way, the meaning behind my argument is the same. The government's response to criminal activity should fit the crime. I'm not saying that people convicted a manslaughter should die just like their victims, only that the more severe the crime the more severe the legal response should be culminating in the ultimate punishment, death.
C) If you don't believe that the purpose of codified law is to maintain a set series of responses to a set series of crimes, using a more severe response to a more severe crime, then you need to go back and study Hammurabi and the original codification of law. As I already stated, before laws were codified lower classes/castes/etc would receive harsh punishments for nothing while nobles could do anything and receive nothing more than a slap on the wrist for it. The codification of law made it so that even a king could be punished for killing a slave. Without it the rich can easily buy their way out of punishment for any crime.
There are no sides. Even in ethics, we need not be in complete agreement to argue the same point. I find the grounds of your argument to be flawed. Therefore, I reject them.
You would actually have to understand my argument to disagree with me. I can't imagine why you wouldn't understand my argument as I've explained myself in detail, but it's very clear you don't. The fact that you continue to reject my stance regardless of my explanations and provide no counter, no explanation, makes me doubt you even read my posts. Go back to page 2. I often write in full paragraphs explaining my view on a subject. After a page of posts you could plagiarize all of my posts for a school essay. Your responses are barely in full sentences.
"the purpose of codified law is to maintain a set series of responses to a set series of crimes, using a more severe response to a more severe crime"
.
I think we can all agree that the above sentence actually makes sense, even Fish. It seems the logical thing to do to adapt the sentence to the crime. However, this does not imply that the correct response to murder is murder - and that is where I think the disagreement lies. More severe crimes are met by more severe responses: in our legal system this means higher fees and longer incarceration; logically, murder would be met by a very long incarceration time (lifetime jail, for instance). Adapting the sentence to the crime does not mean that the sentence has to be the equal of the crime.
However, this does not imply that the correct response to murder is murder - and that is where I think the disagreement lies.
This is where the disagreement lies between you and me, as well as between you and Fish. Of that, at least, we can agree. I came in under the assumption that was the case between any two people who stand on opposite sides of this argument, but I guess setting that distinction up was more necessary than I realized.
Adapting the sentence to the crime does not mean that the sentence has to be the equal of the crime.
You and I seem to have a different idea of equality. There can be two very different things (death and time in prison) that can still be equal. It isn't a matter of whether they are conceptually the same but of determining a value and finding a balance.
I'm not saying that people convicted a manslaughter should die just like their victims, [...]
I thought that was what you were saying. Nevermind.
You would actually have to understand my argument to disagree with me. I can't imagine why you wouldn't understand my argument as I've explained myself in detail, but it's very clear you don't.
Yet I do disagree. You are arguing that the penalty for the most grievous crimes must be severe. You regard execution to be the most severe penalty within the constraints of human rights. You therefore argue for the death penalty in these cases.
I am arguing that the perpetrators of these grievous crimes are too dangerous to attempt reform. I regard execution as the most efficient means of ensuring that the danger is removed. I therefore argue for the death penalty in these cases.
HahiHa at 5:03am
If you go to the 'Do not kill or do not murder' thread, you will see they defined murder as 'wrongful killing'. Before calling the death penalty murder, you have to show it is wrongful; you cannot say it is murder in order to make it wrongful, that would be circular logic.
HahiHa at 7:00pm
However, this does not imply that the correct response to murder is murder - and that is where I think the disagreement lies.
Reading over the past few pages has been really interesting. I wanted to touch upon a point I've been thinking about - the 2 different approaches on offer that attempt to justify capital punishment.
Here's one: A higher degree of heinousness with respect to a crime warrants a higher degree of punishment, with the death penalty reserved for those crimes above a certain threshold of heinousness. Call this the severity thesis.
And here's the other: The most efficient means for removing the threat posed to a particular society is by executing the offender. Call this the defence thesis.
Both theses seem pretty plausible. But I'm wondering if they're independent. In particular, I'm wondering if some version of the severity thesis is in the background of the defence thesis. After all, to identify someone as enough of a threat to society to warrant execution, we would have to look at the heinousness of their crimes. Less severe crimes would obviously not pose a serious threat to society so the defence thesis wouldn't be applicable.
I also have an objection to the defence thesis, though I'd rather hear thoughts on the question I've posed first.
As death is a necessity of human life, I cannot see it as being the epitome of punishment. My argument for the defence thesis is therefore independent of any consideration of severity.
He dies and that is all. He will be out of the world not felling any punishment. But lifetime jail can make him sorry and do a good man out of him so he will be huge pain and he will change. Or he won't ,but he will live in misery rest of his life.
I am arguing that the perpetrators of these grievous crimes are too dangerous to attempt reform. I regard execution as the most efficient means of ensuring that the danger is removed. I therefore argue for the death penalty in these cases.
And, again, I say that by that standard the death penalty shouldn't exist. Life in prison or exile to some form of prison colony would have the same effect without people questioning the morality of the death penalty or having to deal with the costs of numerous appeals. Quite frankly, the goal of prison cannot be reform. You can't change someone unless they open themselves up to change. The first step to fixing a problem is admitting you have a problem. You'll find that statement in every rehab center, intervention, or psychology student's repertoire because it's true. A person cannot change, cannot be reformed, unless they willingly admit that they need to change. Focusing prison on being a form a rehabilitation puts the rights of the criminals above the rights of the victims by mitigating the suffering they experience for causing others to suffer. Prison needs to be harsh, it needs to be a punishment that actively makes a criminal's life miserable, in order to act as rock bottom. People are rarely willing to open themselves up to change until they hit rock bottom.
The people who go to prison and find religion or get degrees realize that if they don't change the way they live their life they're just going to keep coming back to rock bottom until someone kills them or they waste their life away in prison. Those who don't change either don't see change as an option (you'll find them using excuses like "I was born to this life" or blaming their status as a convict for keeping them from fitting in with the rest of the world) or don't see prison as a sufficiently bad to keep them from doing what they want (more common among drug addicts and young people who have experienced homelessness) and thus they keep committing crimes. At a certain level though, the point where a mass murderer, racist, or serial killer has taken multiple lives, it has to be assumed that these individuals not only won't accept reform but have gone too far for prison to be a sufficient response, a deep enough rock bottom. That is where the death penalty comes in. Since there is no coming back from death it can't act as a catalyst for self reform, it can only act as a punishment and a deterrent for future criminals.
Quite frankly, the goal of prison cannot be reform.
And then you go on to explain exactly why it is.
At a certain level though, the point where a mass murderer, racist, or serial killer has taken multiple lives, it has to be assumed that these individuals not only won't accept reform but have gone too far for prison to be a sufficient response, a deep enough rock bottom. That is where the death penalty comes in. Since there is no coming back from death it can't act as a catalyst for self reform, it can only act as a punishment and a deterrent for future criminals.
Death is not a punishment. The purpose of punishment is reform, which we both know isn't going to work on the deceased. Aside from that, you're preaching to the choir.
Just the opposite actually. I explain exactly what purpose prison serves. The actual act of reforming people requires educating them, encouraging them, and supporting them (once again think of rehab or psychiatric help for mental illness). Prison merely provides a reason for the condemned to face their own flaws and seek change, it doesn't nor can/should it try to force reformation on prisoners. When a crime is so extreme that prison is no longer sufficient punishment, that's where the death penalty comes in (from both of our perspectives).
@Moegreche You seem to have hit the nail on the head there.
The actual act of reforming people requires educating them, encouraging them, and supporting them (once again think of rehab or psychiatric help for mental illness).
