Hope you rot in hell!!!!!

[The Mad Monk]

Well, since this is back up and running, let me tie in the Baltimore beating case and ask, if Nicole had died (and she still may), what would be the appropriate way to deal with the perpetrators individually?

Yes, including the eight year old.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
What kind of an idiot bumps a thread so long dead?

More the reason for the death penalty.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Docfeelgood
How bout we nail their scrotum to a stump and push them over backwards?

That would likely involve an enviromental impact statement and a permit form the EPA.

[Mercator]

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

Are you sure? You won't be seeing any more Civ2 utilities then.

How about changing the name of the donor card to "life card". Instead of one question, you get two questions: (1) Do you want to donate your organs when you die? (2) Do you support the death penalty.

On the flip side then, only people who answer yes to (1) will be eligible for organ donations themselves, and only people who support the death penalty can ever actually be executed (in case of a negative answer, the person would get a life in prison without the possibility of parole). That sounds fair enough to me.

[Shi Huangdi]

Can someone provide a link to the story?

[Docfeelgood]

Go to the beginning

[Elok]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
That would likely involve an enviromental impact statement and a permit form the EPA.

Bah. I defy you to show me a scrotum that isn't biodegradable. And you can pry the nail out afterwards.

[Shi Huangdi]

It's not on abc's front page anymore

[St Leo]

I understand that faux plastic testicles are available for neutered pets these days. Perhaps there are human versions out there too.:P

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

Are Jeffery Dahmer and Charles Manson 'innocent' Boris?

And retribution is VERY much an intent of our criminal justice system (it is one of the four purposes of punishment), so it can't really be a perversion, now can it?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Are Jeffery Dahmer and Charles Manson 'innocent' Boris?

Who said anything about them being innocent? I was referring to the hypothetical victims of the crime that executions would spark, under your conditional.

And retribution is VERY much an intent of our criminal justice system (it is one of the four purposes of punishment), so it can't really be a perversion, now can it?

According to who? Legal theorists? It certainly doesn't say anything about vengeance in the law, now does it?

The ultimate purpose of the criminal justice system is to protect society from harm. If your form of punishment is causing more harm rather than preventing it, as it would in this hypothetical, wouldn't you say that's running contrary to the entire point of the system? Come now, it's not that hard...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Who said anything about them being innocent? I was referring to the hypothetical victims of the crime that executions would spark, under your conditional.

I said Jeffery Dahmer, Charles Manson, and their ilk. Now, was there ANY chance that Dahmer or Manson were innocent? Would their 'ilk' be?

According to who? Legal theorists?

Yes. Pick up any Criminal Law book. Retribution, along with rehabilitation, incapacitation, and deterrance, is one of the four basic reasons for punishment.

The ultimate purpose of the criminal justice system is to protect society from harm. If your form of punishment is causing more harm rather than preventing it, as it would in this hypothetical, wouldn't you say that's running contrary to the entire point of the system?

In that case, if the DP was deterrant, wouldn't killing an innocent person 'protect society from harm' because others would be deterred from committing the crime, even if the person killed was later found not to be guilty of it?

And, besides, not everyone agrees the aim of criminal punishment is protection. E. Christian Brugger (author of "Capital Punishment: Roman Catholic Moral Tradition".. a non pro-DP book, obviously) argues that the primary aim is retribution. In that sense, killing an innocent person, even if it would deter other murders, would be wrong.

Retribution sees people as moral actors and by committing a crime, you are violating the morals of the community, and thus you must pay back your moral crime to the community. If the violation of morals is too great for you to be able to pay it back, then your death will be the payback.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Who said anything about them being innocent? I was referring to the hypothetical victims of the crime that executions would spark, under your conditional.

I said Jeffery Dahmer, Charles Manson, and their ilk. Now, was there ANY chance that Dahmer or Manson were innocent? Would their 'ilk' be?

Why is it so many have to use this emoticon with you? Okay, let me requote what I was referencing from you:

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.

Maybe it's worded poorly, but the impression I got from this statement is that you'd be all in favor of executing these men even if the ultimate proven effect of the DP on society is an increase in crime. Now, I responded that if that were the case, then you'd be advocating killing people solely out of retribution AND causing harm to society by increasing crime. The "innocents" I was referring to was the victims of those crimes, not the killers. Mmkay?

So we're still left with the point that advocating the DP when you know the effects are all negative on society is still rather obviously a bad thing, and I find it blatantly immoral. It would be serving no public good whatsoever, in that case.

Yes. Pick up any Criminal Law book. Retribution, along with rehabilitation, incapacitation, and deterrance, is one of the four basic reasons for punishment.

Theory is nice, I suppose, but let's look at our Constitution, shall we? Note the phrase about avoiding cruel and unusual punishment. Now, if it was about retribution, why isn't it eye for an eye and the like?

In that case, if the DP was deterrant, wouldn't killing an innocent person 'protect society from harm' because others would be deterred from committing the crime, even if the person killed was later found not to be guilty of it?

I'm not arguing about this, I was going from the hypothetical that it were to be "proven" that the DP increases crime, thereby having a decidedly negative effect on society. How can you consider any punishment that makes crime worse as remotely desirable? What is the justification for it?

And, besides, not everyone agrees the aim of criminal punishment is protection. *snip*

I'm sure not, but Brugger isn't the final arbiter of the debate, now is he? Considering his religious views, his position isn't surprising. However, I would say the history of legal systems, especially our own, and the manner in which it has been established is proof enough to dispute this. The entire point of the first primitive legal systems were to ensure the protection of society from chaos. The notion of "retribution" in legal codes in the past even had as its basis protecting society, not just revenge for revenge's sake. Letting people know there would be retribution for crimes was shown to prevent them. If the opposite had been shown true--that retribution makes more crime happen--then you can be sure that such legal codes wouldn't have lasted long. Look at German law, which forms a good deal of the basis for our own. The primary reason of establishing the trials was to stop the continuous cyvle of retribution found in blood feuds that was clearly detrimental to their society.

Retribution sees people as moral actors and by committing a crime, you are violating the morals of the community, and thus you must pay back your moral crime to the community. If the violation of morals is too great for you to be able to pay it back, then your death will be the payback.

This is all well and good in a defense of the DP, but that's not what I was arguing about. Again, any sense of "retribution" in the criminal code such as given above is ultimately based on protecting society, because it is believed that if one egregiously violates society's morals with impunity, it will lead to social breakdown and chaos. If it were shown, as in the hypothetical, that such retribution hurts society more than it protects it, the justification above collapses entirely. There is no justification of legal retribution when it has a negative overall impact, simple as that.

[Kuciwalker]

Theory is nice, I suppose, but let's look at our Constitution, shall we? Note the phrase about avoiding cruel and unusual punishment.

Lethal injection isn't particularly cruel, and execution is not particularly unusual.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Kucinich

Quote:

Theory is nice, I suppose, but let's look at our Constitution, shall we? Note the phrase about avoiding cruel and unusual punishment.

Lethal injection isn't particularly cruel, and execution is not particularly unusual.

That's not what the argument is about. At least try to read the whole of it before making snide comments, k?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Kucinich

Quote:

Theory is nice, I suppose, but let's look at our Constitution, shall we? Note the phrase about avoiding cruel and unusual punishment.

Lethal injection isn't particularly cruel, and execution is not particularly unusual.

Nothing unusual about kill a helpless person at all.

[Kuciwalker]

Exactly, there isn't. In fact, it's extremely common, though that has decreased a bit from the historical average

[Imran Siddiqui]

So we're still left with the point that advocating the DP when you know the effects are all negative on society is still rather obviously a bad thing, and I find it blatantly immoral.

Good for you.

Note the phrase about avoiding cruel and unusual punishment. Now, if it was about retribution, why isn't it eye for an eye and the like?

Who says retribution has to be 100% equal? Equal enough.

How can you consider any punishment that makes crime worse as remotely desirable? What is the justification for it?

A moral justification that those men who commit incredibly heinous crimes should not be able to go on living.

The primary reason of establishing the trials was to stop the continuous cyvle of retribution found in blood feuds that was clearly detrimental to their society.

And so retribution was moved from the streets to the court rooms? It was nothing more than the government taking the power of retribution. An increase in the state's reach and power.

After all, we can't have people taking their revenge on certain people the state may want to protect.

any sense of "retribution" in the criminal code such as given above is ultimately based on protecting society, because it is believed that if one egregiously violates society's morals with impunity, it will lead to social breakdown and chaos.

It is not. Retribution in the criminal code is based on the idea that the offender is a moral agent who has earned punishment by his crime. Failure to punish refuses to recognize that the person is a moral agent, morally responsible for his own actions. Even if there is NO utilitarian purpose, the person deserves punishment for his acts.

Why punish unless some good comes of it? The retributivist would respond because it is right to do so.

You are looking at the criminal law from utilitarian eyes and thus don't see any reason to do something in the criminal code unless some measurable 'good' comes from it. The vast majority of criminal law was retributivist, which didn't care about the end good, but merely to punish those who violated the morals of society.