Retributive Punishment

[Samuel Dravis]

Recently I have been involved in a discussion about the death penalty, particularly in relation to this case. The main point of difference between the proponents of the death penalty and myself is that they seem to espouse revenge as a valid reason to punish/hurt someone. For myself, I have never been able to justify revenge in any context, so just up and saying, "Couey's an evil murderer, he needs to die now!" is a fairly large break from my normal mindset. I, of course, can sympathize with the wish for revenge - I too think Couey is quite evil to do something as he did, and I feel for Lunsford's death just like everyone else. However, I just never can connect that "feeling" with "reason to execute." Apparently some people can.

 

So, in this discussion I have principally argued against one person, and eventually got to her core beliefs in the matter: Lunsford was an innocent girl, and whoever hurts innocent girls like that needs to die. There was no interest in any other options, such as life inprisonment, that would achieve the same ends of societal protection. She just wanted revenge - and I quote: "My motive is purely vengeance."

 

So, it seems to me, that in cases where the same end of protection can be achieved without punishment, than that punishment is persued only for vengeance - and I cannot justify vengeance as a moral good. I could even equate the desire for vengeance to Couey's desires at the time of his crime: Pure self-gratification. This, to me, is truly disturbing. I don't like it when I see otherwise good people acting like that. I don't like it at all.

 

Now I'm just curious: does anyone else know the way that some people are able to justify revenge? How is it that some people connect vengeance and moral action?

[AJL]

I oppose death penalty... Not because I think it is too severe punishent or

because I think human life is sacred or any crap like that... (In fact I would

propably give death for almost any robbery, homicide, rape... anything that

is normally punisheable by year or more in prison...)

 

IF ONLY there could be 100% certainty of guilt...

 

But there can NEVER be 100% certainty... And that is why I oppose death

penalty...

[tk102]

@AJL: You say you'd substitute the death penalty for just about any 1+ year prison sentence. Does it follow then that you oppose sentencing someone to 1 or more years of prison because you cannot have 100% certainty? If not, why do feel they are interchangable?

[AJL]

@AJL: You say you'd substitute the death penalty for just about any 1+ year prison sentence. Does it follow then that you oppose sentencing someone to 1 or more years of prison because you cannot have 100% certainty?

 

No...

 

The point was that I oppose death penalty because it is irrevocable...

 

Prison sentence is not...

[SilentScope001]

The point was that I oppose death penalty because it is irrevocable...

 

So is imprisonment. The time you waste in prison, 1 year of your life or more, can never come back. Even if you are not guilty, you still lost time, time that you could have used to make your life better.

[Achilles]

Now I'm just curious: does anyone else know the way that some people are able to justify revenge? How is it that some people connect vengeance and moral action?

My own dime-store theory is that some people need vengeance a tool to help differentiate themselves from those that they judge. I think on some level everyone acknowledges (even if it isn't consciously) that we all come with the same hardware and software. Therefore, given a specific set of conditions, we are all capable of the most breathtaking acts of selflessness. Similarly, within a specific set of conditions, we are all equally capable of the most horrendous acts imaginable (also see: Abraham Lincoln, better angels).

 

I think most people immediately reject this idea. Coming into contact with such a story causes an automatic self-inventory. The knee-jerk response to such an inventory is to run the program called "That person is a sick . I would NEVER do something like that!". Since we can't circumvent this programming without great difficulty, the next best response is to eliminate the stimulus (i.e. kill them, lock them up forever and throw away the key, etc). In situations where this can't happen (for example, the creep is a historical figure, or lives within a different legal system, etc) we invent the concept of an afterlife, complete with judge and lake of fire to satisfy our sense of "justice".

 

To summarize, our "moral" sense of outrage and vengeance is the result of inefficient inventory/self-assessment software than runs on most people's brains. My 2 cents.

 

EDIT: For more about the psychology behind my argument, check out the Stanford Prison Experiment (the actual experiment, not the punk band) as well as in-group/out-group bias. Empirical evidence shows that it's very easy for us to cause or wish harm upon others when they are a "them" rather than an "us".

[SilentScope001]

[Now I'm just curious: does anyone else know the way that some people are able to justify revenge? How is it that some people connect vengeance and moral action?

 

Freud and Nietczche actually provides good reasons why this would happen. For Freud, causing pain onto others is sasitfying the death instinct, and fufils our inner sadisit. For Freidech Nietczche, most of us are "slaves", following the herd, and we basically hate the "masters", those who are leading us and are 'better' than us. Since the slaves hates the master, they want to harm that master for what he is doing.

 

To me, vengence needs to be done because you and the criminal shares two different viewpoints and value systems. In the end, debate between, say, the Jedi and the Sith breaks down. So the Jedi wants to go and show the world that the Sith is wrong so he goes and tortues the Sith and harms the followers of the Sith. It's a "Might makes right" thing, and you can't argue with the results. (I used Sith to represent all evil, thought about using a specific example but decided it might just drive us into an arugment)

[Emperor Devon]

I suppose because the punishment can be canceled and the prisoner can receive compensation for their lost time. Death is obviously irrevocable.

 

I disagree with that, though. There are some cases where we're so absolutely certain about the guilt of the accused and their crimes are so heinous that giving them a trial is a mere formality. Nuremberg and Saddam Hussein are examples of this - some crimes, such as ones against humanity, are deserving of death. Punishments have to be at least somewhat proportional to the crime or obviously it isn't justice. And as far as proportionality goes letting tyrants and mass murderers off with a lethal injection is pretty merciful.

 

On this case, even if this guy gets sentenced to death it won't be an 'eye for an eye' justice. Being raped and then killed is obviously worse than simply being killed. Harsh as it sounds, having him executed can still reasonably be called justice. Revenge is only when the punishment exceeds the crime IMO. If someone has that as their motive that's fine, but as long as justice is carried out at the end I don't see much of a problem.

[AJL]

So is imprisonment. The time you waste in prison, 1 year of your life or more, can never come back. Even if you are not guilty, you still lost time, time that you could have used to make your life better.

 

Sure... You lose in prison too... But if you are found innocent and

you are set free there is a change you may still live long full life...

 

But if you are executed... Thats it then... You lost everything in a

blink... Even if you were found innocent immediately after you were

executed... Nothing can be done...

[SilentScope001]

Sure... You lose in prison too... But if you are found innocent and

you are set free there is a change you may still live long full life...

 

But if you are executed... Thats it then... You lost everything in a

blink... Even if you were found innocent immediately after you were

executed... Nothing can be done...

 

Let makes death revocable then.

 

For example, I remember the cloning debalace when people are worried, "OMG! Someone might get Hitler's DNA and clone Hitler!" Of course, that is silly, even if they clone Hitler, it is the enviorment of the cloned Hitler that will decide what he will be...prehaps the cloned Hitler might become a liberal activist.

 

What it does mean however is that people are worried that dictators might be given a second chance at living. What if we do that? What if we allow for cloning? What if we have clone packs? After we kill someone, we automatically decant a second clone and have that person continue living. We can also upload the memories of that person whom we just killed, so that they would be, for all intents and purposes, the same person.

 

In other words, if we can easily revoke death, then would you be okay with the death peantly?

[AJL]

Like I said earlier I would support death penalty and I would support pretty low

threshold for it too IF it could truly be revocable...

 

--

 

If for example some kind of stasis systems like in many scifi movies and such

would exist where peoples could be kept indefinitely without need take care of

them, then I would propably support a "harsh line" system where there is no

normal prisons and criminals are strict divided into two groups...

 

1. Those who can be allowed to remain free (under observation... or something)

 

2. Those who can not be... And they are ALL put to stasis for the rest of their

natural lifetime... (or untill they are found innocent...)

[tk102]

Like I said earlier I would support death penalty and I would support

pretty low threshold for it too IF it could truly be revocable...

Seems inconsistent. As you said, you don't believe "life is sacred or crap like that" so why is there a need to have 100% proven guilt? If you get it wrong, oh well, shrug. It's not like it was sacred. Right?

[AJL]

Seems inconsistent. As you said, you don't believe "life is sacred or crap like that" so why is there a need to have 100% proven guilt? If you get it wrong, oh well, shrug. It's not like it was sacred. Right?

 

Because I AM here... I could be sentenced to death... ( I am INNOCENT! )

And there are peoples I think I propably care about more or less and I think

I might become upset if they would be executed...

[Achilles]

^^^^

Wouldn't that be a case for a better trial system rather than a different method for punishment? Seems that you could still get thrown in jail, frozen in carbonite, etc erroneously, couldn't you?

 

EDIT: Also, I hate to "that" guy, but what does any of this have to do with SD's questions?

[AJL]

^^^^

Wouldn't that be a case for a better trial system rather than a different method for punishment? Seems that you could still get thrown in jail, frozen in carbonite, etc erroneously, couldn't you?

 

There is no Perfect trial system... And I don't believe there can be either...

 

And so of course I could still get sentenced even though I am innocent...

 

But that "frozen in carbonite" sentence would practically be like revocable

death sentence... I think... Which I think would be better than normal jail

or death sentence...

[SilentScope001]

Seems inconsistent. As you said, you don't believe "life is sacred or crap like that" so why is there a need to have 100% proven guilt? If you get it wrong, oh well, shrug. It's not like it was sacred. Right?

 

Well, it's more of "Life isn't sacred but we are doing harm to a person's happiness and ability to live, and that HAPPINESS and QUALITY OF LIFE is sacred. Not life." At least, that's what I'm getting at.

 

My view? People are going to die anyway. And if there is no God, they get to sleep peacefully and happily. So why in the world would we like to send them off to Heaven and a blissful sleep early? You are REWARDING the criminal for his crime, not punishing him.

[Achilles]

There is no Perfect trial system... And I don't believe there can be either...

 

And so of course I could still get sentenced even though I am innocent...

 

But that "frozen in carbonite" sentence would practically be like revocable

death sentence... I think... Which I think would be better than normal jail

or death sentence...

I didn't say "perfect", I said "better".

No system is perfect. There are always exceptions.

 

I still say that focusing on a better form of punishment (or system of consequenses) won't address the specific concerns that you raise.

[Darth InSidious]

To me, this idea is anathema. One wrong does not erase another, one death cannot reverse another, two wrongs will not make a right.

 

And even proportionate revenge is never enough. Revenge is an all-consuming hunger to inflict what has been inflicted ten, a hundred, a thousand-fold upon the one who inflicted to begin with. Feed it, attempt to satisfy it, and the hunger grows. Can it be satisfied? I believe not.

 

Revenge cannot be satisfied, and allows anger, hate, violence to grow within you, until it can override everything else.

 

So do I believe in satisfying revenge? Do I believe in retribution? No. And so I cannot believe in retributive punishment - it appeals to the destructive, primal nature of humanity, and is, in my opinion, barbaric.

[Totenkopf]

So, what do you do? It seems wrong to lock him/her up and hand society the bill. Perhaps a frontal lobotomy, or should brain surgery advance far enough, a sort of "death of personality" (essentially reprogram him/her with a new identity and physical appearance). No doubt it will cost money, but by them maybe less than the current equivalent of $25K/yr till they die of natural causes or million plus bucks to execute him/her. What's the cost to salve one's conscience?

[Darth InSidious]

No mere monetary value can be placed upon human life, IMO.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Let makes death revocable then.

Death is irrevocable. There's no way around that.

 

Cloning makes a copy of the individual cloned. Let's say I kill you. You're dead. Then I take the DNA and create a copy of you. You're still dead. The copy starts living, but you are still dead, not feeling anything, experiencing anything, or doing anything. Regardless of whether or not there's a copy of you which would act somewhat similar to you (not at all exactly like you, because we're shaped by our environment), you're dead when you're dead. As a side note, that's one reason why I never liked Star Trek. First they kill Picard, then they make a copy, and that's supposed to be telportation? It's no more telportation than me killing someone, sending the DNA sample to the States, and having the person cloned there. But back on topic...

 

'Carbonite'-freezing, 'lobotomy' et al are even more primitive than death penalty, if you ask me. They're both cruel punishments, especially lobotomy, even if performed in some modern, remotely civilized way.

 

Freezing someone is not a viable alternative either, as it's the same result as the death penalty in cases where the person is actually found irrevocably guilty and not found innocent at a later time.

 

Yes, death penalty is about revenge. Plain and simple. The executed individual is a human being and should not be subject to killing, even if he himself has taken another person's life. Let's leave killing to euthanasia of people who actually are goners, like Terri Schiavo or a terminally ill patient who does nothing but lie in a bed 24 hours a day in great pain, never to recover.

 

As for the deterrent effect, I do not support utilitarian thinking, so it's not a convincing argument to me.

 

So, what do you do? It seems wrong to lock him/her up and hand society the bill.

Another argument against life-long sentences.

[Totenkopf]

As for the deterrent effect, I do not support utilitarian thinking, so it's not a convincing argument to me.

 

Another argument against life-long sentences.

 

So, how do exactly do you propose to punish someone that commits heinous crimes? If you don't kill 'em or lock 'em away (and destroy the key), how do you propose to protect society from any future crimess by such charachters?

[Jae Onasi]

Another argument against life-long sentences.

 

I don't want to share my streets with someone who's raped and killed, especially in a heinous manner. I sure don't want to see John Couey back out on the streets so he can molest and kill another 9 year old. I think he's done more than enough damage to the child, her family, and society with that act. I don't really care that he has a drug problem and heavens knows what else in his psyche. The fact remains he killed a little girl, and he'd likely do something like it again if he were ever let out of prison.

 

There are some people who are truly malevolent, and society needs protection from their evil. Prison isn't just about punishing the bad guy, it's also about protecting society from further violence. If someone has proven they are destructive to society, they don't get to enjoy the benefits of being a part of society. If that means locking them up forever, then so be it. Criminals had the choice to commit the crime or not. They've earned the penalty for their behavior.

[SilentScope001]

Cloning makes a copy of the individual cloned. Let's say I kill you. You're dead. Then I take the DNA and create a copy of you. You're still dead. The copy starts living, but you are still dead, not feeling anything, experiencing anything, or doing anything. Regardless of whether or not there's a copy of you which would act somewhat similar to you (not at all exactly like you, because we're shaped by our environment), you're dead when you're dead. As a side note, that's one reason why I never liked Star Trek. First they kill Picard, then they make a copy, and that's supposed to be telportation? It's no more telportation than me killing someone, sending the DNA sample to the States, and having the person cloned there. But back on topic...

 

The thing is, it's about Memory Transplants as well, not just the cloning.

 

If you are cloned and do not have the memory of your previous life, then you and the clone are different. But if you have the same memories, in essence, the same personality and the same thing that makes us have the same 'soul', then you are the same person according to Locke, and according to many people as well.

 

So, suppose we kill someone for the murder of a person. And then we place the memories of that person we killed into a new cloned body. Then that person, remembering all he has ever done, is the same person as the person who killed.

 

If we have some sort of "MemoMax" system by which we can transfer memories to other people, then we could easily make someone live forever, while his 'clones' would just die and die and die. This solution is actually quite appealing, altough it would be yet another strike against religion (How can you fear about Hell if you can theortically live forever?). It might ease the pain of a death peantly, as it would indeed be revokable.

---

...And, hm, prehaps deterrence doesn't really work after all. Why? Because deterrence only work if you can GET CAUGHT. Somehow, I have a feeling that if any murder get unsolved, the detterence effect is meaningless. Maybe we just need more funding to help make our police better, rather than arguing what punishment criminals we have already gotten...since, well, the criminals we have arrested, we have control over. We have no control over the criminals that are out of our reach.

 

Detterence also doesn't work for those truly devoted to his cause (how are we supposed to kill a dead body of a hijacker in 9/11?).

[Dagobahn Eagle]

If you are cloned and do not have the memory of your previous life, then you and the clone are different. But if you have the same memories, in essence, the same personality and the same thing that makes us have the same 'soul', then you are the same person according to Locke, and according to many people as well.

No. You are still a copy, and the original is still dead. If you're killed, then your consciousness won't magically jump into your copy when it's created. You are a goner.

 

As for how to punish murderers and rapists, I don't know. I'm all for jail sentences, but a life-long sentence is too harsh. As for 'sharing the streets with rapists and murderers', we always have and always will. We just don't know because rapists and murderers don't exactly wear identifying armbands.

 

I firmly believe that if certain measures are put in effect, we can release killers without having to fear them. Sure, the ones deemed untrustworthy should stay behind bars, but those deemed healthy should be given a second chance once their term in jail is served. I say keep the released convicts under surveillance, give them electronic foot-rings, and give them some strict restraining orders. If their second chance fails, fine, lock them up until they rot.