"If this does not qualify for the death sentence, then there is no case that would'' - Page 2

Zulu Elephant · March 14, 2004, 12:17

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I don't see how one arrives at the conclusion that people who kill others must by definition be insane. So far neither one of you seem to be able to provide anything resembling substance to support that conclusion.

Any definition of insanity is only as good as the reasons you give to justify it. Maybe we're simply suggesting a better definition that would not allow the death penalty

DinoDoc · March 14, 2004, 12:19

So far neither one of you seem to be able to provide anything resembling substance to support that conclusion.

Zulu Elephant · March 14, 2004, 12:27

Whaleboy

Im simply saying that if you define insane as 'someone who doesn't have a mental barrier to prevent you from randomly killing people' then you can't justify the death penalty.

We understand that provocation can be used as a defence or at least as a reason for leniency in sentencing - this is because it lowers the mental barrier.

Some people, through the environment they were brought up in or currently live in, may lose their mental barrier to murder - We shouldnt sentence them to death because that.

Kuciwalker · March 14, 2004, 12:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I think what he's getting at is that within the context of a society (rather than making a canonical statement), in order to kill one has to be mentally insane, since the rest of us seem to have a mental barrier to doing so. Those people are insane and should be placed into mental homes.

Now as for the DP, you could argue that that saves resources. However, they have committed the crime, but you are making the proposition of a punishment, and taking that person into your care. Because of the question of risk, that is, at the moment of death is that person a threat to those who have taken him into care, allowing him to die in that case constitutes murder.

The only way a DP would be justifiable would be DIRECTLY saving the life of another victim, i.e., if someone has a gun to my head, and a police officer has a gun to the perps head, the officer has the right to pull the trigger. The legitimacy of state-sponsored death ends there.

You are looking at the death penalty from the wrong point of view - after the crime has been commited. The choice is not whether or not to inflict the DP on a specific person, but rather whether or not to adopt a policy of inflicting the DP on people who have commited certain crimes. Even if, after the fact, it doesn't make sense to inflict the DP, it does make sense (or at least it might) to force yourself now to have a system that would act irrationally and inflict the DP after those crimes have been committed. If implementing such a system would have net positive results, then you implement it.

It's similar to the idea of MAD - once the Soviets have launched their nukes, it makes no sense for me to launch mine, because it won't help me any and will end up annihilating everyone, not just me. However, before they launch, it makes perfect sense to have a system that forces us to retaliate if they launch, because then they won't launch. And if they are insane, and do launch, there's nothing we could have done about it anyway.

Proof that the DP (or rather, vengeance in general) has utilitarian value? Evolution. It has proven useful for a species to be slightly irrational and exact vengeance.

The Templar · March 14, 2004, 12:30

Quote:

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
The legal definition of insanity is that the person in question does not realize that what he is doing is wrong.

That's the old M'Naughton test which is now the minority test.

Besides, it mixes moral language ('right and wrong') with psychological/psychiatric language ('insanity') in such a way that the two are incommensurable.

tinyp3nis · March 14, 2004, 12:31

The real question is why not? Just get it over with, in whos best interest it is to keep him locked up for the rest of his miserable life (and not being able to do what he would want to do), his? No, it's in the best interest of people who oppose such "cruel" things such as death penalty. Who benefits?

Kuciwalker · March 14, 2004, 12:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant
Any definition of insanity is only as good as the reasons you give to justify it. Maybe we're simply suggesting a better definition that would not allow the death penalty

Which is why insanity is such a stupid excuse. All it means is "I'm the sort of person who would kill people." Maybe we should extend the definition of insanity to "I'm the sort of person who would commit a crime"?

DinoDoc · March 14, 2004, 12:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant
Im simply saying that if you define insane as 'someone who doesn't have a mental barrier to prevent you from randomly killing people'

I don't see the chain of logic you go through to arrive at that definition. So far it sounds like your just lumping in personality disorders into the category of insanity which doesn't make any sense.

The Templar · March 14, 2004, 12:35

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
So far neither one of you seem to be able to provide anything resembling substance to support that conclusion.

These acts are so far beyond the pale, I don't see any sort of a rational motive.

Bank Robbery -> money
Killing a witness -> not going to jail
Drugs -> money

Even,

Killing spouse for cheating -> anger

But, this? These crimes and activities don't even make sense. I cannot even think of a situation in which these actions would make any sense. Looks crazy to me.

Zulu Elephant · March 14, 2004, 12:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Kucinich

Maybe we should extend the definition of insanity to "I'm the sort of person who would commit a crime"?

Maybe if people understood that there are environmental/structural factors that make people "the sort of person who would commit a crime" then we could consentrate on eliminating those factors rather than killing or imprisoning millions of citizens who have been exposed to those factors

Kuciwalker · March 14, 2004, 12:39

So? The fact that I'm that sort of person doesn't excuse me, obviously. OF COURSE only the sort of person who would commit a crime (by which I mean anyone who would, when provided with certain stimuli, commit a crime) will commit a crime. So what? They're still guilty. The point is to prevent crimes. Helping the people is one way, but so is punishing them. You haven't shown that your way is more effective.

Zulu Elephant · March 14, 2004, 12:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Kucinich
So? The fact that I'm that sort of person doesn't excuse me, obviously. OF COURSE only the sort of person who would commit a crime (by which I mean anyone who would, when provided with certain stimuli, commit a crime) will commit a crime. So what? They're still guilty. The point is to prevent crimes. Helping the people is one way, but so is punishing them. You haven't shown that your way is more effective.

You're failing to see the distinction between punishment and detterence

...and I dont have to show that my way is more effective, I have to show it is morally right. Anyone who says that debate about the DP is about it's effectiveness is insane. People's lives cant be ended for administrative reasons. Otherwise we start killing the unemployed to balance the budget.

The Templar · March 14, 2004, 12:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Kucinich
So? The fact that I'm that sort of person doesn't excuse me, obviously. OF COURSE only the sort of person who would commit a crime (by which I mean anyone who would, when provided with certain stimuli, commit a crime) will commit a crime. So what? They're still guilty. The point is to prevent crimes. Helping the people is one way, but so is punishing them. You haven't shown that your way is more effective.

You fail to appreciate the contradiction hidden in your argument. If anyone given a set of stimuli will commit a crime, then their is no choice involved. If there is no choice there is no moral responsibility. If there is no moral responsibility, what is the basis for guilt?

tinyp3nis · March 14, 2004, 12:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant

Maybe if people understood that there are environmental/structural factors that make people "the sort of person who would commit a crime" then we could consentrate on eliminating those factors rather than killing or imprisoning millions of citizens who have been exposed to those factors

Or maybe people do and they still wouldn't care for the guy to stick around. Btw you are scaring me, you think you could end up or could have ended up like him?

Zulu Elephant · March 14, 2004, 12:45

Quote:

Originally posted by tinyp3nis

Or maybe people do and they still wouldn't care for the guy to stick around. Btw you are scaring me, you think you could end up or could have ended up like him?

Anybody could end up like that like that given the right set of circumstances / balance of chemicals in their brain during their life - both of which are not their fault

Kuciwalker · March 14, 2004, 12:52

Quote:

Originally posted by The Templar
You fail to appreciate the contradiction hidden in your argument. If anyone given a set of stimuli will commit a crime, then their is no choice involved. If there is no choice there is no moral responsibility. If there is no moral responsibility, what is the basis for guilt?

GAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!!!!!!

****ing morons who think determinism precludes free will

Just because you made the choice according to certain ruels, doesn't mean you DIDN'T MAKE THE CHOICE!!!!!! You "couldn't do anything about it" because you decided NOT to! You have the moral responsibility for it, because it wasn't some decision forced on you externally, but rather made internally! It doesn't matter if you used predictable rules to make the choice!

Kuciwalker · March 14, 2004, 12:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant
Anybody could end up like that like that given the right set of circumstances / balance of chemicals in their brain during their life - both of which are not their fault

If someone dosed you with chemicals, then I can see you complaining. But since YOUR MIND made the decision, YOU bear the responsibility. What you're saying amounts to "if he hadn't been standing there, then I wouldn't have shot him, so it's not my fault that I shot him".

tinyp3nis · March 14, 2004, 12:54

Care to show the studies that show this? Also you seem to think we are all born "the same". I guess genes don't exist either?
When I years ago figured out that nobody gets to choose what they born to be, I realised how irrelevant it is if they do or don't. I agree if you know enough about a deed, be it good or not, you can predict it, so there are no outstanding feats or horrible crimes... but wait... if there are no penalties because everyone is the same, why should there be rewards, to add a flawor?

? Or anything at all, everything is the same.

Kuciwalker · March 14, 2004, 12:57

However, I don't want to get into a free will debate right now, so I'll give a simple utilitarian answer: whether or not the person is "guilty", there is a net positive result from punishing him.

Q Classic · March 14, 2004, 12:58

still against dp.

what would befit this crime? castration and permanent residence in a 2x3x2 cage.

Kuciwalker · March 14, 2004, 12:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant
You're failing to see the distinction between punishment and detterence

...and I dont have to show that my way is more effective, I have to show it is morally right. Anyone who says that debate about the DP is about it's effectiveness is insane. People's lives cant be ended for administrative reasons. Otherwise we start killing the unemployed to balance the budget.

I have shown how it's the "right" thing to do - it results in a net benefit for society.

Rogan Josh · March 14, 2004, 13:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Kucinich
****ing morons who think determinism precludes free will

Yes it does.

Maybe you shouldn't bang your head against the wall so much... you seem to have developed brain damage...

Urban Ranger · March 14, 2004, 13:22

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why are we assuming the guy is insane?

I am not. I am just saying that there's no basis for capital punishment. That's why it should not be applied here, or in any other case.

Urban Ranger · March 14, 2004, 13:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Kucinich
Just because you made the choice according to certain ruels, doesn't mean you DIDN'T MAKE THE CHOICE!!!!!!

Does a burglar alarm have freewill?

Q Classic · March 14, 2004, 13:25

if said alarm is a dog, then i think it does.

Urban Ranger · March 14, 2004, 13:27

What if the dog always barks very loudly at strangers who enter your house from midnight to 7am? Does it have freewill?

Oncle Boris · March 14, 2004, 13:32

Spiffor, Civman, Whaleboy, Zulu:

I think it is utterly hypocritical to claim you are against the DP, just to specify that there are exceptions. You are for or against, period.

Oncle Boris · March 14, 2004, 13:34

Skywalker, again: it's not only about making a choice, but about making a choice that is only subject to a self-created algorithm.

Maybe you'll understand this someday.

DinoDoc · March 14, 2004, 13:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

I am not.

Then I wasn't refering to you then.

The Templar · March 14, 2004, 15:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Kucinich

GAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!!!!!!

****ing morons who think determinism precludes free will

Temper, temper ...

The idea of freewill coexisting with determinism is called compatablism. As a former colleague once said "compatabilism isn't".

Quote:

Just because you made the choice according to certain ruels, doesn't mean you DIDN'T MAKE THE CHOICE!!!!!!

Of course, if the rules must be followed (i.e. there is no choice not to follow) and the rules force one course of action, then there is no choice.

There is no possibility of opting out of the rules if there is no free will, and there is no choice between courses of action if action is a product purely of hardwired characteristics and environmental input.

So you need some form of freewill for morality. But, the existence of freewill is something for which its defenders must make a case.

Quote:

You "couldn't do anything about it" because you decided NOT to! You have the moral responsibility for it, because it wasn't some decision forced on you externally, but rather made internally! It doesn't matter if you used predictable rules to make the choice!

Boring.

You just presupposed freewill (the capacity to make decisions) in order to show freewill. Circular argument.