Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dr Rick · 06-05-2003, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
It seems self-evident to me that one who would deny the right to life of another person hardly deserves to retain that right for himself.

Therefore, it is "self-evident" that those who support the death penalty no longer retain the right to life for themselves...

Jat · 06-05-2003, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by NHGH
A few of my off-hand reactions on this topic:

You can put me down as another vote in the "condemned man's choice" camp. To me, this seems like the most reasonable way of handling the fundamental problem that I think the death penalty poses: How much power should we place in the hands of the state? Let convicted murderers choose whatever seems to them the lesser of two evils: death or imprisonment.

I actually don't think that's true. Obviously, you couldn't give more time (in any meaningful sense) to someone who's serving a life sentence already, but the conditions of confinement could get a lot worse. Instead of execution, you could send that person to one of the new "supermax" prisons where prisoners are kept in 23-hours-a-day (or more) confinement, in cellblocks where the doors are operated by remote control so that they are deprived, for the most part, of human contact even with prison staff, etc. All of which makes it very difficult to commit violent acts against other prisoners or staff, and probably much more unpleasant than confinement in a "normal" maximum-security prison. Very harsh, and again I'd allow the condemned prisoner the option of execution, but the alternative is there.

Is it that they actually want to die, or just that they choose it as the lesser of two evils? No doubt there are a few isolated cases of people using execution as a sort of state-assisted suicide, but I'm not convinced that this is frequent enough to set up public policy around these exceptions.

Frankly, I get a little antsy when people object to the death penalty on the grounds that it's not severe enough. I'm already uncomfortable enough with allowing the state to execute people; I'm definitely opposed to allowing it to inflict a fate worse than death.

I would rather die than spend the rest of my life imprisoned. That is a fate far worse than death. Those who think that prisons are like a resort where one is clothed and feed haven't spent any real time behind bars. One of my older brothers spent a few years in prison for gunrunning for a biker gang.

Philosoft · 06-05-2003, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Rick
Therefore, it is "self-evident" that those who support the death penalty no longer retain the right to life for themselves...

Oh my!

:notworthy

Jat · 06-05-2003, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by Optional

Once again, I'm not talking about a perceived danger to society, I'm talking about an individual who, through his actions, has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that if he is ever again loose in society, he will kill again. It would be an EXTREMELY strict standard.

Can you tell the future, can you read minds? There is a thing as being innocent until proven guilty and once one has paid their debt to society they are suppost to have another chance. It is like those who are born to alcoholics. They are more likely to be alcoholics themselves, but that still isn't a guarantee that they will be.

I agree. That's part of why I don't like the way the death penalty is currently applied.

The death penalty has been used in many cultures as a means to get rid of undesirables as well, not just for those who may kill. China uses the death penalty to get rid of political dissentors and uses their organs for transplants as well.

Philosoft · 06-05-2003, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
It seems self-evident to me that one who would deny the right to life of another person hardly deserves to retain that right for himself.

I think it is inconsistent to support only the fraction of the eye-for-eye doctrine that metes out the worst punishment. In any case, the U.S. doesn't consistently apply the eye-for-eye doctrine with respect to the death penalty. We also execute people for treason.

yguy · 06-05-2003, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Rick
Therefore, it is "self-evident" that those who support the death penalty no longer retain the right to life for themselves...

No, because the murderer has forfeited his right to life; therefore killing him is not denying his right to life, because he no longer has it.

yguy · 06-05-2003, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft
I think it is inconsistent to support only the fraction of the eye-for-eye doctrine that metes out the worst punishment.

I don't see the inconsistency, seeing how I haven't said that doctrine is the proper basis for criminal justice. I mean, it may be, but I'm not going to commit to it at this time, as there seems to be a revenge factor implicit in it that I don't care for.

Quote:

In any case, the U.S. doesn't consistently apply the eye-for-eye doctrine with respect to the death penalty. We also execute people for treason.

Seems to me traitors are every bit as deserving of death as attempted murderers, since for personal gain they would put their countrymen's lives at risk in time of war.

NHGH · 06-05-2003, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
No, because the murderer has forfeited his right to life; therefore killing him is not denying his right to life, because he no longer has it.

This line of reasoning would also seem to entail that, if I decide to grab a gun and shoot a murderer, say, as an act of revenge, I shouldn't be prosecuted. Would you agree?

yguy · 06-05-2003, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NHGH
This line of reasoning would also seem to entail that, if I decide to grab a gun and shoot a murderer, say, as an act of revenge, I shouldn't be prosecuted. Would you agree?

No, it would only imply that you are not guilty of murder. Since it behooves the State to proscribe vigilante justice, it may reasonably punish you in some manner, in my view - but not on the grounds that you have taken away the murderer's right to life.

Mike Rosoft · 06-05-2003, 01:13 PM

I don't believe that allowing the sentenced criminal to either choose death or life imprisonment is a good idea. It would most likely solve the problem of wrongful executions, but it would have its problem, too:

Quoting Amnesty International's report on death penalty in the USA:

Quote:

[Death penalty:] Futile
...
More than 90 other prisoners have gone to their deaths after dropping their appeals, including those listed below. Such cases have been described as state-assisted suicide, but are perhaps more accurately characterized as prisoner-assisted homicide. In any event, the cases of ''volunteers'' serve to illustrate the cruel exercise in futility that is capital punishment. In some cases, the individual actually claimed to have committed the crime in the first place in order that the state would kill them, not only showing the death penalty's failure as a deterrent, but also its possible counter-deterrent effect.
...
Jeremy Sagastegui. Executed, Washington 1998. Acting as his own lawyer, he rejected jurors less likely to favour execution. He offered no mitigation, and urged the jurors to sentence him to death. In an interview before his execution, he said: ''if the state wouldn't have had the death penalty, those people would still be alive''.

Mike Rosoft

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-05-2003, 10:33 AM	#34
Jat Banned Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Canada Posts: 1,311	Originally posted by Optional Once again, I'm not talking about a perceived danger to society, I'm talking about an individual who, through his actions, has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that if he is ever again loose in society, he will kill again. It would be an EXTREMELY strict standard. Can you tell the future, can you read minds? There is a thing as being innocent until proven guilty and once one has paid their debt to society they are suppost to have another chance. It is like those who are born to alcoholics. They are more likely to be alcoholics themselves, but that still isn't a guarantee that they will be. I agree. That's part of why I don't like the way the death penalty is currently applied. The death penalty has been used in many cultures as a means to get rid of undesirables as well, not just for those who may kill. China uses the death penalty to get rid of political dissentors and uses their organs for transplants as well.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.