Hope you rot in hell!!!!!

[Agathon]

Originally posted by skywalker
What's wrong with revenge? It seems to me that that's the basis of our justice system. In fact, screw the "lethal injection" crap, and make the death more painful the worse the crime.

What's wrong with it is that there is no rational justification for it. All the attempts to justify it rely on crypto-religious beliefs or on mere emotionalism.

People say that if a person freely chooses to kill someone else, that this somehow entitles other people to kill him. What I want to know is why I should believe this?

Of course revenge is a completely natural human emotion, as are love and anger; but the mere having of this emotion does not justify acting on it. If it did, then merely feeling lust would legitimate rape, but it doesn't.

Retributivists talk about "the balance of justice" or, as Imran did "Atonement" (itself a religious concept). The idea is that the punishment somehow makes up or corrects for an imbalance in the natural order which was caused by the criminal act. But what does this mean? There just is no natural balance or order of natural justice - these things are metaphysical fictions, or as I claimed earlier crypto-religious beliefs.

The best account I have seen is that by acting in the way he does, the criminal is in effect saying that it is alright for anyone to act this way, and so others can do the same to him by applying his own standard. But the immediate objection is that these people by harming the criminal put themselves in the same situation and open themselves up to retributive action. Imran tried to get out of this by claiming that the State has a special status which exempts it from this regress of responsibility, but he could provide no justification for that belief.

In fact, if we look at most crimes, the purpose of punishment is deterrence. If someone attacks another person and injures them, the state does not injure these people back in the same way, but puts them in prison. This prevents them from doing it again and provides an incentive for violent people to think twice about their actions. But it isn't clear how a particular length of prison sentence is supposed to "fit" the crime. In fact, when people talk about punishment "fitting the crime" they don't really know what they mean and could not provide an objective account of why, for example, rape is worth 10 years rather than 15. The fact that different countries have massively divergent sentences for the same crime, shows that there is no objective metric by which to determine the appropriate punishment for a crime.

So what we have left is deterrence. We try to lock up seriously dangerous people to prevent them wreaking havoc in society and we impose severe punishments so as to deter opportunists from committing crimes.

But the real nail in the coffin of retributivism is that it completely ignores preventive deterrence. According to retributivists, only when someone has committed a crime is the state justified in punishing them. No action should be taken to prevent crime at all, since there is no justification for it.

Consider the possibility that at some point in the future, we will be able to test for psychopathy and predict the incidence of criminal activity with a 95% rate of success. Consider also in this case, that we have no effective treatment for psychopathy. What do we do? Do we let known pyschopaths walk the streets and endanger the lives of citizens because they have as yet committed no crime, or do we find some way of monitoring them or sequestering them from the rest of society?

A retributivist would say that we must do nothing, since these people have committed no crime. But that's just dumb - what they are saying in effect is that we should fail to protect victims of crime. And this shows them up for what they are - they are not champions of victims rights, they are only interested in punishing people. This is a barbaric and pre-civilized attitude based on nothing more than a desire to wreak cruel vengeance upon others, rather than being serious about crime.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Tattila the Hun
But them in some hole, infect them with some disease and let them (literally) rot. Might get the rest to think twice.

And whoever disagrees with this is a wussy!

I am wussy and proud of it. Welcome to the 21st Century.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Soooooo....who's for the death penalty?

Killin's too good for 'im. He should have something a as esquisite, but much longer term.

[curtsibling]

For once I agree with Mr Slowwhand!

Now that's got to mean something!

I would wish total death on this kid-killing creep right now, and all hand-wringing whiners can join him!

[Imran Siddiqui]

The State is not morally justified in doing anything, nor does it "decide" which moral rights people have, or what is right or wrong.

Um yes it does. All rights flow from the state. If the state decides you don't have the right to life, you don't. That simple.

I find this quite magical.

Then find it magical. Actors acting on behalf of the state are not acting for themselves and thus are not are not morally blameworthy. Oh, and before your bring in Nuremberg, I'll respond to that later down in the post (to Oncle Boris' question).

What if the moral code of that society is to present yourself for rape by smelly old men? Would I be morally blameworthy for refusing to do it, and should I be punished?

Yes and yes. That's the moral code of society and until you can change it, it should be followed.

So if I steal 50 bucks, I should give 50 bucks back. Sounds like an excellent deal to me, if I can get away with it one out of every five times. Oh... you think the punishment should be more? Why? - deterrence obviously.

No, not obviously. Paying back your crime to society doesn't mean simply pecuniary pay back, but moral payback. You stay in because you've done wrong and deserve your punishment, in order that society is payed back in that way.

If you think that is wrong, then you have to provide a reason as to why it is OK to act on some emotions and not others.

'Cause the state and society have decided some emotions shouldn't be acted upon for an ordered society.

A state has no moral code -- a state must be amoral for your above point to stand.

Society does. And the state and society usually exist in tandem.

Was the Nuremberg trial unfair because the convincted had acted on behalf of the state?

Except for those who actually ran the state (Goering, Tirpitz, etc), yes. I always thought it was wrong that the judges of the state were found guilty of simply doing their jobs (and being in a Civil Law country, they didn't make any of the law).

But, of course, that is what happens when you lose a war. The winners decide who gets theirs.

that means it can only be applied very rarely and when there is such a preponderance of evidence as to assure the guilt of the criminal. I'm not talking mere "beyond a reasonable doubt," I'm talking about beyond ANY doubt.

I can agree with that.

If you only care about revenge, please don't go into criminal law.

You've obviously never stepped foot into a Prosecutor's Office.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

The State is not morally justified in doing anything, nor does it "decide" which moral rights people have, or what is right or wrong.

Um yes it does. All rights flow from the state. If the state decides you don't have the right to life, you don't. That simple.

This is a fallacy called "conflation of morality with legality". You will find it listed in any good practical logic book.

Quote:

I find this quite magical.

Then find it magical. Actors acting on behalf of the state are not acting for themselves and thus are not are not morally blameworthy. Oh, and before your bring in Nuremberg, I'll respond to that later down in the post (to Oncle Boris' question).

So you are going to dodge the question. Come on Imran, you are smarter than this. Show me what makes the difference.

Quote:

What if the moral code of that society is to present yourself for rape by smelly old men? Would I be morally blameworthy for refusing to do it, and should I be punished?

Yes and yes. That's the moral code of society and until you can change it, it should be followed.

That may be the moral code of society, but that doesn't mean it is right.

Besides, this view is easy to reduce to paradox. What it one part of the moral code of the assraping society is that it is wrong to change the moral code of the assraping society.

Quote:

So if I steal 50 bucks, I should give 50 bucks back. Sounds like an excellent deal to me, if I can get away with it one out of every five times. Oh... you think the punishment should be more? Why? - deterrence obviously.

No, not obviously. Paying back your crime to society doesn't mean simply pecuniary pay back, but moral payback. You stay in because you've done wrong and deserve your punishment, in order that society is payed back in that way.

But you've provided no account of what this moral currency is. That leads me to believe it is metaphysical fancy rather than having anything to do with reality. As I pointed out above, the fact that different societies have different sentences is prima facie evidence that there is no such moral "currency" or "balance".

Quote:

If you think that is wrong, then you have to provide a reason as to why it is OK to act on some emotions and not others.

'Cause the state and society have decided some emotions shouldn't be acted upon for an ordered society.

And you call me a totalitarian.

Quote:

A state has no moral code -- a state must be amoral for your above point to stand.

Society does. And the state and society usually exist in tandem.

But not always. The state can oppress its citizens. So your point loses all force, since by your lights that is impossible.


Come on man! Your side is losing and losing horribly at that .

[Tattila the Hun]

Just popped to my mind, what did Rudolf Hess do? Exept crashing a perfectly good Me? He did spent his life in Spandau...

[curtsibling]

His close links to Adolf and his strange, heavy eyebrows were deplored by the victorious Allies.

[Imran Siddiqui]

This is a fallacy called "conflation of morality with legality". You will find it listed in any good practical logic book.

That's nice... But law is just legislated morality.

So you are going to dodge the question. Come on Imran, you are smarter than this. Show me what makes the difference.

I have. The difference is the individuals aren't doing it because they want to kill people, they are doing it because the state wants to kill people. I really don't see what is so hard to grasp about this.

That may be the moral code of society, but that doesn't mean it is right.

It is for that society at that time.

What it one part of the moral code of the assraping society is that it is wrong to change the moral code of the assraping society.

It is never wrong to change the moral code of society. But it is 'wrong' to go against it. Of course some people prefer to do the wrong in order to change the moral code. That is their decision.

But you've provided no account of what this moral currency is.

I don't have to. That is up to each society to decide what the weights are.

The state can oppress its citizens. So your point loses all force, since by your lights that is impossible.

I've said it is impossible for the state to oppress its citizens? It is very possible, it is also isn't 'wrong' for that state or society.

Your side is losing and losing horribly at that .

It is actually winning, since you can't wrap your mind around very simple concepts .

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Either way, no electric chair. Lethal injection done as quietly as possible. We can hopefully avoid having bloodthirsty animals like you cheering for it.

I take the opposing view. Run an execution live (no pun intended) during prime-time.

I'm opposed to the death penalty (once supported it) and feel EVERYONE should see what the State does in their name. One gruesome public execution should about finish the argument.

[curtsibling]

Sure.

I am sure many Americans would shed a tear at Osama being fried.

Did anyone cry when the Omaha bomber got his just fate?

Case closed.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

This is a fallacy called "conflation of morality with legality". You will find it listed in any good practical logic book.

That's nice... But law is just legislated morality.

no it isn't and that is irrelevant. You said in effect that being legal is the same as being moral. That is false, since it is possible to engage in moral criticism of the law without contradicting oneself.

Quote:

So you are going to dodge the question. Come on Imran, you are smarter than this. Show me what makes the difference.

I have. The difference is the individuals aren't doing it because they want to kill people, they are doing it because the state wants to kill people. I really don't see what is so hard to grasp about this.

It doesn't work. I might as well say that I'm not killing people because the Toronto Mac User Group wants me to kill people. Try again.

Quote:

What it one part of the moral code of the assraping society is that it is wrong to change the moral code of the assraping society.

It is never wrong to change the moral code of society. But it is 'wrong' to go against it. Of course some people prefer to do the wrong in order to change the moral code. That is their decision.

Again. But what if the moral code of society prohibits trying to change it? You've contradicted yourself.

Quote:

But you've provided no account of what this moral currency is.

I don't have to. That is up to each society to decide what the weights are.

But there is no non-arbitrary mechanism for doing so. And that's because the idea is a fiction.

Quote:

The state can oppress its citizens. So your point loses all force, since by your lights that is impossible.

I've said it is impossible for the state to oppress its citizens? It is very possible, it is also isn't 'wrong' for that state or society.

"Oppress" is a moral word. If it's impossible for the state to do moral wrong, then by definition it is impossible for it to oppress its citizens.

Quote:

Your side is losing and losing horribly at that .

It is actually winning, since you can't wrap your mind around very simple concepts .

Which you can't seem to explain. Anyone who reads this thread will know that it is you who has failed to explain your own theory. Your've basically just repeated your theory as if that counted as a justification. I even gave your side's explanation and showed how it doesn't work.

You're a good guy Imran, but this is like shooting fish in a barrel.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by curtsibling
Sure.

I am sure many Americans would shed a tear at Osama being fried.

Did anyone cry when the Omaha bomber got his just fate?

Case closed.

Read my post again. You obviously missed the PUBLIC part.

Case not even considered. Try again.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You said in effect that being legal is the same as being moral.

No, I said that laws are legislated morality, which is different. While the state grants all rights, there can exist other morality which says there are other rights. They can say it all they want, but that doesn't mean those other rights exist, at least in that society.

I might as well say that I'm not killing people because the Toronto Mac User Group wants me to kill people.

The Toronto Mac User Group doesn't have the power in society. So try again yourself.

But what if the moral code of society prohibits trying to change it?

Then it is 'wrong' to try to change the code AT THAT TIME. It is never wrong to actually change the moral code, because when you change it then you are validated. Trying to change and actually changing are two different things.

That doesn't mean that people won't try to do wrong to change it, but it still is wrong to do so in that society. Like the USSR. It was wrong to try to change the code of society, but once a moral code was changed than the attempt to change that aspect was ok.

there is no non-arbitrary mechanism for doing so.

And your point? What is the non-arbitrary mechanism for deterrance? Why should a rapist get 10 instead of 15? How do we know that 10 would deter just as good?

"Oppress" is a moral word. If it's impossible for the state to do moral wrong, then by definition it is impossible for it to oppress its citizens.

Not for an outsider. Because their societies have their own defintion of what is a moral wrong or right and they can critcize other societies. However, even though they can do so, doesn't mean they are correct... unless they have the power to do something about it.

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by Wezil
Read my post again. You obviously missed the PUBLIC part.

So you think that we would all turn weepy at seeing a killer rapist cash his chips?

Have you ever seen the aftermath of a crime, or are you an armchair moralist?

Originally posted by Wezil
Case not even considered. Try again.

Sorry, Over-ruled!

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

You said in effect that being legal is the same as being moral.

No, I said that laws are legislated morality, which is different. While the state grants all rights, there can exist other morality which says there are other rights. They can say it all they want, but that doesn't mean those other rights exist, at least in that society.

This is just relativism, which I am surprised to see coming from an avowed tory.

Quote:

I might as well say that I'm not killing people because the Toronto Mac User Group wants me to kill people.

The Toronto Mac User Group doesn't have the power in society. So try again yourself.

But if the Toronto MUG (or any other group) seized power it would and that would be OK according to your theory. So try again.

Quote:

But what if the moral code of society prohibits trying to change it?

Then it is 'wrong' to try to change the code AT THAT TIME. It is never wrong to actually change the moral code, because when you change it then you are validated. Trying to change and actually changing are two different things.

Then what if the moral code says its wrong to change it ever?

Quote:

there is no non-arbitrary mechanism for doing so.

And your point? What is the non-arbitrary mechanism for deterrance? Why should a rapist get 10 instead of 15? How do we know that 10 would deter just as good?

We find out by trial and error. That is by looking at the evidence.

I thought that was obvious. Deterrence is based on empirical fact.

Quote:

"Oppress" is a moral word. If it's impossible for the state to do moral wrong, then by definition it is impossible for it to oppress its citizens.

Not for an outsider. Because their societies have their own defintion of what is a moral wrong or right and they can critcize other societies. However, even though they can do so, doesn't mean they are correct... unless they have the power to do something about it.

That's just relativism. In which case you can't really argue with anyone else, since you admit your own sense of rightness carries no weight. You should join Whaleboy's club.

[Imran Siddiqui]

This is just relativism, which I am surprised to see coming from an avowed tory.

You haven't been paying attention to my posts lately. I'm a moral relativist, fyi.

But if the Toronto MUG (or any other group) seized power it would and that would be OK according to your theory.

Yep. It'd then be the state. Why should I try again then?

Then what if the moral code says its wrong to change it ever?

If it changes then it is proven wrong isn't it? Still doesn't change anything.

We find out by trial and error. That is by looking at the evidence.

I thought that was obvious. Deterrence is based on empirical fact.

Actually it really isn't. The weights are very arbitrary and have been. Empirical fact doesn't really play into it.

[Kuciwalker]

This is just relativism

It took you that long to figure it out?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Wezil
One gruesome public execution should about finish the argument.

Public executions rarely tick off the public. Some would even make a party out of it.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by skywalker

Quote:

This is just relativism

It took you that long to figure it out?

Well, a conservative moral relativist is not something you find every day.

It still doesn't solve his explanatory problems though.

[Oncle Boris]

Imran, your posts are making my day. Thank you for relieving me of the burden of Aristotle's metaphysics.

Let's sort through some of your statements and examine their coherency, will ya?

Quote:

Was the Nuremberg trial unfair because the convincted had acted on behalf of the state?

Except for those who actually ran the state (Goering, Tirpitz, etc), yes. I always thought it was wrong that the judges of the state were found guilty of simply doing their jobs (and being in a Civil Law country, they didn't make any of the law).

Then it is 'wrong' to try to change the code AT THAT TIME. It is never wrong to actually change the moral code, because when you change it then you are validated. Trying to change and actually changing are two different things.

Interesting. Isn't 'non-retroactivity' a guiding principle of law? If you can change the law and apply the changes to past events in order to punish the guilty, then you are obviously destroying the idea that the law is always right at a given time. What does this imply?

-that a legislation must believe to be eternally valid if it is to affect events that occurred outside of its grasp, in which case it isn't relativist anymore. In other words, you can sociologically study the law from a relativist perspective, but proactively applying its principles can only be internally incoherent.
If only you believe that having the power to force a law is what defines (and SHOULD) law and morality, you are making an universal statement that you need to justify rationally.

-if it is recognizing its relativity, then it must recognize its non-retroactivity, and that would be another universal statement requiring a coherent justification. Put otherwise, if you believe your ethics to be purely relative, then you can't justify applying it by force to others-and thus, the following becomes false:

unless they have the power to do something about it.

BTW, dead persons and/or sunk battleships are not eligible for trial. Aflfred von Tirpitz died in 1930.

Now, let's have fun with what you said about the USSR.

That doesn't mean that people won't try to do wrong to change it, but it still is wrong to do so in that society. Like the USSR. It was wrong to try to change the code of society, but once a moral code was changed than the attempt to change that aspect was ok.

So, the only way to become right is by being wrong?

How can you even use the words right and wrong, if they are to be different from context to context?

Now, let's say I'm posting this from planet Mars. What's the social context that will determine if my position, or my actions, are right or wrong? Yes, the only 'social context' will be that created by my own conscience.

Now, please explain the process by which the appearance of other humans- even a single one- would change this. If single individuals can create whatever context they wish, how is it that 'society' can come in at any moment and claim back the monopoly of its definition?

A believes proposition Y to be right. B believes proposition Z to be right. Both propositions are opposed and mutually exclusive.

A is living on Mars, B on Venus. B comes to Mars and forces Z on A's mind. How is it that A can't force Y on B anymore? Because two individuals make a society? Because the State exists somewhere in Plato's world of Ideas, and that it has more 'being' than individual minds?

I'd add thousands upon thousands of objections, but since I've got some serious stuff to study, I'll let Agathon do the dirty work this time. You are overwhelmingly wrong.

[Whoha]

I read the 1st three pages so someone forgive me if no one has posted the story:

This guy has 12 previous convictions, and was aquitted from a kidnapping charge(he was "holding her down to prevent her from running into traffic" or some such nonsense),he was supposed to be in Jail because he violated parole but a judge decided that that was no reason to put him in jail,he grabbed this girl, walked off with her, killed her, and dumped her body.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If you can change the law and apply the changes to past events in order to punish the guilty, then you are obviously destroying the idea that the law is always right at a given time.

Those who have the power to force the law can decide that, yes, it indeed applies retroactively. They can decide the law was wrong because they now have the power. However, you get it wrong... the law IS RIGHT at the given time. Why? Did you see Nuremberg trials during the Holocaust or after the war? If the law wasn't right at that given time, then why wasn't the trial done then?

if you believe your ethics to be purely relative, then you can't justify applying it by force to others

Why not? If their ethics are equal to mine, then why can't I subserve their ethics to my equally valid one? Now if their ethics were better, then I couldn't, but if they are equal then it doesn't matter as much.

You forget there are two versions of relativity. One that says every one is equal so no one can impose on anyone, and the other which says every one is equal so conquering another ethical system is no big deal.

the only way to become right is by being wrong

In certain societies, yes. You are wrong in that society, but if your change takes root, then you are deemed to be right.

If single individuals can create whatever context they wish, how is it that 'society' can come in at any moment and claim back the monopoly of its definition

Because society has the monopoly from the beginning. Individuals can have their own context, but the combination of them (in a democratic society) or the context of the ruler (in other societies.. then again the individual is technically the ruler in democratic societies) defines what the societal context, which takes precedence is.

You are overwhelmingly wrong.

Only to utter nincompoops such as yourself .

[Oncle Boris]

You are actually repeating your stance without providing the arguments at its root. But I like you anyway.

BTW, you have not answered one of my previous question: don't you think that the extreme nature of the DP, and its widely unproven (EDIT: not 'disproven') deterrence effect, combined with the low crime rates of countries not using it (not proven to be causal but still worth interpreting material), can justify at least a moratory so that independant studies can unveil the truth?

Indeed, in such a conservative place as the American mockracy, the truth can be politically expensive.

[Imran Siddiqui]

don't you think that the extreme nature of the DP, and its widely unproven (EDIT: not 'disproven') deterrence effect, combined with the low crime rates of countries not using it (not proven to be causal but still worth interpreting material), can justify at least a moratory so that independant studies can unveil the truth?

I don't see the point. What 'truth' are we 'unveiling'? And do you think we should do this for other things? Should we put a moritoriam on violent movies until independant studies can 'unveil the truth' about how it effect society?

And I'm sorry, but even if it is 'proven' that the DP actually increases crime, I'd still be for killing Charles Manson, Jeffery Dahmer, and their ilk.

[embalmer42]

Wezil - so would you force people to watch the execution then? If so, would everyone have to watch or just those of voting age? If not, would airing an execution really change the public mood?

[DinoDoc]

What kind of an idiot bumps a thread so long dead?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And I'm sorry, but even if it is 'proven' that the DP actually increases crime, I'd still be for killing Charles Manson, Jeffery Dahmer, and their ilk.

Now that's just plain immoral. If it's proven that the DP ultimately hurts innocent people in its effect, then the only justification of it is simply vengeance. That's not only morally reprehensible, it's perversion of the intent of our criminal justice system.

[Docfeelgood]

How bout we nail their scrotum to a stump and push them over backwards?

[Kuciwalker]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Agathon
What's wrong with it is that there is no rational justification for it. All the attempts to justify it rely on crypto-religious beliefs or on mere emotionalism.[/q]

Why not? Are you submitting to Ayn Rand's belief that it is "rational" to act in one's self-interest?

People say that if a person freely chooses to kill someone else, that this somehow entitles other people to kill him. What I want to know is why I should believe this?

Why not? Plus, it doesn't matter if you believe it, if we happen to have the guns

Of course revenge is a completely natural human emotion, as are love and anger; but the mere having of this emotion does not justify acting on it. If it did, then merely feeling lust would legitimate rape, but it doesn't.

So? We happen to think revenge is a justified one

Retributivists talk about "the balance of justice" or, as Imran did "Atonement" (itself a religious concept). The idea is that the punishment somehow makes up or corrects for an imbalance in the natural order which was caused by the criminal act. But what does this mean? There just is no natural balance or order of natural justice - these things are metaphysical fictions, or as I claimed earlier crypto-religious beliefs.

Agreed.

The best account I have seen is that by acting in the way he does, the criminal is in effect saying that it is alright for anyone to act this way, and so others can do the same to him by applying his own standard. But the immediate objection is that these people by harming the criminal put themselves in the same situation and open themselves up to retributive action. Imran tried to get out of this by claiming that the State has a special status which exempts it from this regress of responsibility, but he could provide no justification for that belief.

There's a very simple justification: the State is, by definition, an organization with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Therefore, by definition, the state can legitimately kill someone.

And this shows them up for what they are - they are not champions of victims rights, they are only interested in punishing people. This is a barbaric and pre-civilized attitude based on nothing more than a desire to wreak cruel vengeance upon others, rather than being serious about crime.

Why is it "barbaric" and "pre-civilized"? It seems to have been the dominant feeling in most, probably ALL civilizations to date!