Retributive Punishment

[SilentScope001]

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.

 

You are still you, as long as the memory is transplanted from the dead person to the new clone, or "magically jumped" as you said. More technology is needed to see if this is even possible, but if it is, then what I say is plausible.

[Samuel Dravis]

If you had two copies of yourself, which one is the real you? If one deserves punishment, then both deserve punishment. Why wouldn't you punish both?

 

Additionally, if you killed one copy, why would the other care about it? It certainly wouldn't be punishment for that one. Sorta defeats the purpose...

[SilentScope001]

If you had two copies of yourself, which one is the real you? If one deserves punishment, then both deserve punishment. Why wouldn't you punish both?

 

Hm...if they both receive the same memories at the same time, and they both plot together their crimes, then they should both get punished. What I think of however is that there would be one copy, and after that copy get executed, the second one would be 'decanted'.

 

If two people, each starting out with the same memories, exist, it is possible that they may receive different experiences, and that their memories might drift apart. If so, they both become two different people, and the copy that committed the crime is different from the copy that did not commit the crime.

 

Additionally, if you killed one copy, why would the other care about it? It certainly wouldn't be punishment for that one. Sorta defeats the purpose...

 

Well, if the memories get transferred, then the person will get to remember that he was killed. If death is painful to that person, that would act as punishment. And if copies cost lots of money, then prehaps the second copy might feel some pain in the pocketbook...

[Allronix]

Man...some of y'all could weigh in on the the Revan execution thread.

 

As for real life? I'm opposed to the death penalty. It's actually MORE expensive to fry the guy than to lock him up, some of the sick #&@^$ who do these crimes get a buzz off the noteriety of a public execution (see Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy), and DNA testing with other forensics have reversed enough "airtight" convictions to fill a bushel. Top it off with the fact it puts the US in the same company as China, Saudi Arabia, and the Sudan, causing diplomatic headaches for extradition.

 

Other reasons are the racial and economic disparities in its use. Someone who can't afford a slick lawyer, someone who hasn't much for education, a diminished IQ, or mental illness is definitely at a disadvantage. That, and there's plenty of data to back up the fact that a black man who kills a white person will get the chair faster than a white person killing a white person or a white person killing a black person (statically speaking). Then, there's the human frailty factor in tainted evidence, a DA or judge who's up for election and has to "look tough," and juries hand-selected by one of the sides in the case.

[Lord Spitfire]

I'm all for the Death Penalty.

 

Look at Couey, for an example. He is a monster that needs and deserves to be put down. He is evil - and thus must be killed. If you let them live - it's like you're almost encouraging criminals to commit a monsterous crime such as the one he did. After all, you're not going to die. What does it matter?

 

But if he is executed like the sick and evil man he is, that will be justice. After doing what he did to the girl, he deserves the same thing done to him - an eye for an eye. And that needs to be done! It is injustice NOT to severely and painfully kill people like him.

[JediMaster12]

In today's world there seems to be much more emphasis over the rehabilitation aspect of sentencing like probation or a drug rehab program. It is one of several solutions to deal with the issue with prison sentences. There is no doubt about it: we have too few prisons here in the states and crime is still pretty high. There have been various ways in which states have tried to issue out sentences that are reasonable much like playing mathematics.

 

With the death penalty, I would have to say that I prefer it. There are several things that really tick me off. The first and foremost are those perps who molest or sexually assault children. The second and third and so forth are blurred. Murdering someone for whatever reason is despicable. I would say that the death penalty is a good form of retribution in terms of the punishment fitting the crime. Unfortunately I would love to include the perps who do the unspeakable to kids but that could be constituted as cruel and unusual punishment as stated within the Bill of Rights.

 

In terms of the death penalty, it was outlawed once because it was constituted as cruel and unusual punishment. It was reintroduced in the 60's after Georgia remodified the Penal Code. Since then there are about 30-40 states that have the death penalty but there are some that don't use it like New York. Other states, like Texas have executed 340 prisoners since then out of 600 on death row. Nowadays, prisoners on death row can choose the mode of exceution which include the electric chair, lethal injection, the gas chamber and firing squads. The death penalty is based upon the philosophy of an eye for an eye, the retribution philosophy. While it is wrong to deny a person of life, the person who did such a thing is in no deservance of a life.

[Samuel Dravis]

In today's world there seems to be much more emphasis over the rehabilitation aspect of sentencing like probation or a drug rehab program. It is one of several solutions to deal with the issue with prison sentences. There is no doubt about it: we have too few prisons here in the states and crime is still pretty high. There have been various ways in which states have tried to issue out sentences that are reasonable much like playing mathematics.

Given the total death row population is somewhere around 3250, I doubt housing is a serious problem for this category of prisoner.

 

With the death penalty, I would have to say that I prefer it. There are several things that really tick me off. The first and foremost are those perps who molest or sexually assault children. The second and third and so forth are blurred. Murdering someone for whatever reason is despicable. I would say that the death penalty is a good form of retribution in terms of the punishment fitting the crime. Unfortunately I would love to include the perps who do the unspeakable to kids but that could be constituted as cruel and unusual punishment as stated within the Bill of Rights.

Indeed, I agree with you about being ticked off and their crimes being despicable. You lose me right around the "good form of retribution" though. For you, what is it that justifies an act of (pure) retribution and makes it a moral good?

 

The death penalty is based upon the philosophy of an eye for an eye, the retribution philosophy. While it is wrong to deny a person of life, the person who did such a thing is in no deservance of a life.

Do you believe that "eye for an eye" justifications are always good responses to crime? If not, then at what point does "eye for an eye" become a good philosophy, and why?

 

My whole problem being, of course, that when I feel the desire for vengeance, I'm not really all that concerned about whether something is justifiable. For me, it seems to boil down to "I'm going to take vengeance because I will feel better having done it." Yes, it may make me feel better, but I bet Couey felt nice when he killed too. What's the difference? I can't justify killing someone just because it makes me feel better. Is there something I'm missing here?

[Darth InSidious]

@JM12: And what happened to the new standard higher than the old, pray?

 

What, in fact, happened to 'thou shalt not kill'?

[Vaelastraz]

I think Samuel Dravis is right. Killing someone will just serve your sense of revenge. What is the difference for society if a criminal is locked up forever?

 

Besides, being locked up for your life, spending 23 hours a day alone is a terrible enough punishment. That could be the harshest penalty for mass murderers.

[JediMaster12]

Indeed, I agree with you about being ticked off and their crimes being despicable. You lose me right around the "good form of retribution" though. For you, what is it that justifies an act of (pure) retribution and makes it a moral good?

I call it a good form in that it cobforms with the view I have about an eye for an eye. I don't call it a moral good but rather a justifiable good. It is wrong to take someone's life. That is a given with most people. I say it is justifiable because there are some people that death would be their just reward like the perps who sexually assualt, rape and kill their victims.

 

Do you believe that "eye for an eye" justifications are always good responses to crime? If not, then at what point does "eye for an eye" become a good philosophy, and why?

Not always. I do believe that the rehabilitation philosophy would work too. Drug rehab for those with drug offenses. Of course we run into the issue of the person staying clean and all but I am in favor of that as well.

 

My whole problem being, of course, that when I feel the desire for vengeance, I'm not really all that concerned about whether something is justifiable. For me, it seems to boil down to "I'm going to take vengeance because I will feel better having done it." Yes, it may make me feel better, but I bet Couey felt nice when he killed too. What's the difference? I can't justify killing someone just because it makes me feel better. Is there something I'm missing here?

Maybe you don't understand it because you haven't had someone you love murdered. For some people, if the perp is executed, they do get peace of mind. Maybe there is some vengeance in their but that depends on the person. I get revenge on my brother for playing tricks on me, does that make me a bad person?

I call the death penalyty justifiable because on a general consensus to deprive someone of life is wrong. It is justifiable when the the person in question deprives someone else of life. It is the same dilemma that cops face IAD over the question of whether a shooting was justifiable or not.

[Totenkopf]

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle

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.

 

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....and give them some strict restraining orders. If their second chance fails, fine, lock them up until they rot.

 

Sooooo.....you lose me here. If life-long sentences are a bad thing, then why do you have no problem with them for recidivists?

[Samuel Dravis]

I call it a good form in that it cobforms with the view I have about an eye for an eye. I don't call it a moral good but rather a justifiable good. It is wrong to take someone's life. That is a given with most people. I say it is justifiable because there are some people that death would be their just reward like the perps who sexually assualt, rape and kill their victims.

If it's not a moral good then why would we ever want to do it over other options?

 

I am interested in your view of what lawful punishment is supposed to be for. Is punishment done merely to cause suffering without purpose, or is it done to protect other innocents?

 

Not always. I do believe that the rehabilitation philosophy would work too. Drug rehab for those with drug offenses. Of course we run into the issue of the person staying clean and all but I am in favor of that as well.

Well, what sort of crimes does it take to make using "eye for an eye" better than rehab/containment?

 

Maybe you don't understand it because you haven't had someone you love murdered. For some people, if the perp is executed, they do get peace of mind.

I certainly hope I don't have that happen! I'm not sure how being angry and wanting closure really affects the morality of killing someone, however. Suppose someone finds their husband cheating on them. What sort of options for vengeance does being angry allow him that being calm did not? An excuse for doing something immoral - but if that's all it is, why shouldn't he be held responsible to follow the straight and narrow path?

 

I wouldn't count wanting closure as something worthy of killing someone over.

 

Maybe there is some vengeance in their but that depends on the person. I get revenge on my brother for playing tricks on me, does that make me a bad person?

In relation to the unnecessary suffering caused - well, yes. Not very bad, mind (unless you're truly evil ), but I can't say that getting back at him was a good thing to do.

 

I call the death penalyty justifiable because on a general consensus to deprive someone of life is wrong. It is justifiable when the the person in question deprives someone else of life.

I'm not really interested in relativism. Why is it better to kill someone after the fact of their crime when it serves no other purpose than "feeling good/providing closure" and there are other viable options available?

 

It is the same dilemma that cops face IAD over the question of whether a shooting was justifiable or not.

Depends on the shooting. If the cops were in a hot situation, then they might be justified by any number of scenarios, all of which involve immediate protection of lives - and none of which apply to the death penalty's situation, where the (no longer dangerous) perpetrator is deliberately killed.

 

If the cop captured a guy that had previously killed his buddy in a firefight, and executed him for that there would be...sticky ethical problems. The military has had this sort of situation in Iraq. The other day I heard that soldier beat a captured insurgent - badly - after he and his friends were shot at with sniper rifles. He even broke his hand doing it.

 

Justifiable? Ehh, he was angry, couldn't help himself, sure you can justify it all you like. Stupid snipers shouldn't have been shooting at our guys! They get what's coming to them. But wait, this was after the insurgent was captured and he apparently beat him up in cold blood. Oh.

 

Moral? No. There were other options available and he was wrong to do it. Just because someone else does something immoral does not mean you can do the same (essentially) right back to them and say it's good. The only way I can think of to justify doing so is protection of other people, but that's taken care of through the prisons. We no longer need to kill for protection, so I see precious little in favor of the death penalty, as a justifiable venture or moral choice.

[JediMaster12]

Sam Dravis: I don't pretend to be a saint. Truly this does exemplify the complexity of the human mind. I believe that a punishment must fit the crime and I believe that leniency can be granted. It's that magnificent thing called mitigating and aggravating cirumstances.

 

Well, what sort of crimes does it take to make using "eye for an eye" better than rehab/containment?

I think murder is a crime that makes eye for an eye better. The fine details go into if the person is truly remorseful. If that happens, then life sentence.

[ET Warrior]

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.

That's interesting, who gets to decide that someone is so obviously guilty that they don't even really need a trial? At what point are we going to draw that line? Do we only allow the death penalty for those who we have this 100% no doubt about it certainty of guilt? And if so, again, how do we conclude 100% that somebody is guilty of a crime?

 

It was pointed out earlier in the thread that the number of 'criminals' who we were so sure of their guilt that we eventually found to be innocent is a pretty impressive number. Are you okay with the idea that we may end up killing innocent people just so we can get our revenge?

 

Maybe you don't understand it because you haven't had someone you love murdered.

Maybe you don't understand because you haven't had someone you love who you know was innocent murdered by the judicial system that is supposed to protect us.

[Totenkopf]

That's interesting, who gets to decide that someone is so obviously guilty that they don't even really need a trial? At what point are we going to draw that line? Do we only allow the death penalty for those who we have this 100% no doubt about it certainty of guilt? And if so, again, how do we conclude 100% that somebody is guilty of a crime?

 

It was pointed out earlier in the thread that the number of 'criminals' who we were so sure of their guilt that we eventually found to be innocent is a pretty impressive number. Are you okay with the idea that we may end up killing innocent people just so we can get our revenge?

 

Originally Posted by JediMaster12

Maybe you don't understand it because you haven't had someone you love murdered.

 

ET:Maybe you don't understand because you haven't had someone you love who you know was innocent murdered by the judicial system that is supposed to protect us.

 

This raises an interesting question. If we can't know "100%" that someone is guilty of a crime, how can we know that someone is 100% innocent either? Unless you're the alibi (but then ONLY you can claim to be 100% anything), that would seem to be very problematic as well. B/c, to what degree can the rest of us trust the claim of someone who claims they know someone is innocent, if it is only the alibi's claim we have to work with to presume "100%" innocense"?

[ET Warrior]

I wouldn't necessarily you can know 100% either way unless you directly witnessed the events, though I honestly don't know how this relates to my argument...at all.

 

Should we start presuming guilty until proven innocent? Is that your implication?

[Totenkopf]

Was curious how you could emotionaly argue to JM12 that someone could know (presumably 100%)that their innocent fill-in-the-blank was murdered by the state, yet somehow one's guilt cannot be determined 100% in your riposte to ED.

 

ET:That's interesting, who gets to decide that someone is so obviously guilty that they don't even really need a trial? At what point are we going to draw that line? Do we only allow the death penalty for those who we have this 100% no doubt about it certainty of guilt? And if so, again, how do we conclude 100% that somebody is guilty of a crime?

 

In your reply to me you acknowledge such culpability can be ascertained by eyewitnessing (directly or presumably via camera) the crime. Besides, when you read ED's statement, he's not suggesting "no trial" anyway. If I have sufficient credible information (tv footage of you commiting the crime and being properly identified as assailant), then a trial IS merely a formality in determining your guilt. At this point, the trial really only serves to observe the legal nicities (your legal rights) and proclaim sentence upon you.

 

Presumption of innocense does not equate actual innocense. That doesn't mean, as you seem to infer, that we jettison the concept across the board. I'm only curious as to how you can ever know someone is innocent if you were not an eyewitness to the crime they are accused of in the first place. Your reply to ED implies you believe him to be indiscriminate in his support of the death penalty, to JM12 that she's too insensitive. Also, how large is this pretty impressive number and how does it compare to the total number of the sentences carried out and still pending?

 

Sadly, though, it often does seem like guilty till proven innocent (regardless of the "alleged" crime in question).

[JediMaster12]

Maybe you don't understand because you haven't had someone you love who you know was innocent murdered by the judicial system that is supposed to protect us.

Innocent as in bystander? I was the victim of a felony crime. I was a victim of an armed robbery. I had a gun pointed in my face and was told to get down on the ground. I stood toe to toe with the guy who robbed the store that I work at on the weekends while he yelled at me to turn around and get down. As far as I know, they never caught the guy. Oh I understand full well that the system isn't perfect. Don't tell me that ten times over.

 

Because of that I do think that sometimes the perps get off easy. I am just lucky that I am alive and that all the guy wanted was the money.

[ET Warrior]

Don't tell me that ten times over.

Well then I suppose it's good that I didn't even say that once. At all. In fact, I honestly haven't the foggiest idea what you or Totenkopf are arguing about, because you keep quoting my posts and then running off on some completely separate tangent. I don't even know how to reply to either of you, because you don't seem to be actually debating me.

[Jae Onasi]

All right folks, everyone take a deep breath. Relax. Re-read the Kavar's corner rules--they're different from other forums.

 

Those who've been victims of crimes, recognize that you may have a stronger response to some of this than non-victims. Those of you who have not been victims, be aware that those who have are going to be a lot more sensitive to this issue than you. Please try not to ratchet up the emotions.

[Totenkopf]

First, ET, your stand on CP is fairly well established in these forums. You seem to suggest that there is no such thing as 100% assurance that someone is guilty of a crime (your post to ED). In your reply to JM12 you assert that she can't understand opposition to the DP b/c perhaps she has never experienced the pain of someone who knows (how?) that a loved one facing ececution/executed is/was innocent (I presume 100%). My question to you was simply that if you claim that we can't know someone was absolutely guilty, how can you (or anyone) be sure that your/their loved one was absolutely innocent.

 

Now, you can't argue that a trial will determine absolute guilt on it's own b/c you state that there are an impressive # (how many, btw) of people who have suffered a miscarriage of justice in the courtroom. So, if absolute guilt cannot be ascertained (except by eyewitnesses?), how can you claim that anyone knows that someone facing execution is actually not guilty? Frankly, loved ones will often experience pain if a family member/friend is executed regardless of their guilt. In essence, I've not gone off some wild tangent, just merely asked you to clarify your position. Thanks.