Tocky on 7/3/2009 at 22:22
Quote Posted by Kolya
I didn't mean these things were the same. But in about five minutes people will come rollin in here and tell you that it's completely natural to take a life for a life. (That is if the people who call me an asshole aren't here first.) And then you will know why I said that.
Looks like you fail at prediction.
Perhaps though, you could explain to me how it is in any way justice for someone who takes a life to be able to live out thier own. Recently we had a fellow released on parole who raped and murdered, bound, gagged, anal raped, bludgend to death with hammer, the usual. Please explain to me how it is justice that he walks free and she suffered horrendously and lies cold in a grave?
It is the law and in no way justice. We seem to operate under the misaprehension that mercy and forgiveness are justice. It is not. Justice would be for the perpetrator to experience everything thier victim did including death. We can't do that. Natural? Yes, since the first amoeba ate another. But we try to adhere to a higher standard.
What we can do is feed them in a box and let them out after a number of years according to the whim of the sort of people who pass laws that say you can be jailed without parole for life for owning ten pounds of pot.
Some people hunger for justice. I don't blame them. The law and justice suffer a severe disconnect even in the best of circumstances. Personally I'm not so tied to the vagaries of the law that I can't see when something is wrong. I might feel bad for the people who have to execute or the society that feels it necessary to cling to a lower standard but it would be closer to actual justice than the way things are.
Swiss Mercenary on 8/3/2009 at 09:24
And then the guy's name will be cleared by new DNA evidence. Except that we've already executed him. In which case I guess it won't. Nobody'll re-open a cold case. How much a miscarriage of justice will administering an irreversible punishmen be, eh?
Kolya on 8/3/2009 at 11:12
Quote Posted by Tocky
Looks like you fail at prediction.
Funny you should say that and go on to prove me right. A bit late maybe but that's the magical workings of reverse psychology. Anyway, it's actually three things we're talking about here:
1. Feelings of revenge out of empathy for the victim (that's you)
2. Morality (due to it's somewhat arbitrary nature often used to mask 1.)
3. The goals of a government passing a law (not to be confused with 1. or 2.)
Shug on 9/3/2009 at 01:03
Quote Posted by Swiss Mercenary
And then the guy's name will be cleared by new DNA evidence. Except that we've already executed him. In which case I guess it won't. Nobody'll re-open a cold case. How much a miscarriage of justice will administering an irreversible punishmen be, eh?
The fact that the legal system can get it wrong isn't really an argument against particular types of punishment
Tocky on 9/3/2009 at 03:10
Quote Posted by Kolya
Funny you should say that and go on to prove me right. A bit late maybe but that's the magical workings of reverse psychology. Anyway, it's actually three things we're talking about here:
1. Feelings of revenge out of empathy for the victim (that's you)
2. Morality (due to it's somewhat arbitrary nature often used to mask 1.)
3. The goals of a government passing a law (not to be confused with 1. or 2.)
No. Read my post carefully. I never said I was for capital punishment. I said to administer what the perpetrator deserved was a justice we cannot do. To reap what you sow is justice. That is to recieve exactly what you give.
1. No. Revenge is a thing seperate from justice. I certainly empathize more with the victim but it does not dull my cognitive capabilities.
2. Morality is not justice. We cannot do justice and retain a moral high ground.
3. The law is not justice. The goals of a government are not justice.
Our very humanity prevents us from administering justice. While I understand and do empathize with those who thirst for it, justice is a thing we cannot do. True justice is a thing too terrible and would wound the giver as deeply.
Scots Taffer on 9/3/2009 at 03:45
Quote Posted by Shug
The fact that the legal system can get it wrong isn't really an argument against particular types of punishment
Well, it kind of is - if a punishment is deemed absolute, then so too shouldn't judgement?
Shug on 9/3/2009 at 04:24
That doesn't even make sense
But aside from that, arguing for lesser punishment / sentencing because of the possibility of incorrect rulings? What an outrageous can of worms. To even get into this requires some pretty in-depth legal knowledge I don't possess, but even on the surface I can see it's a foolish idea.
demagogue on 9/3/2009 at 05:17
There is an argument there, but it's sort of being misrepresented so far.
The angle that's getting the most traction these days (in American jurisprudence anyway) isn't just that the system is flawed with too many false positives (although it received a huge shock when the DNA exculpatory cases started because nobody realized just how many false positives there had been for so long) ... But the real sticking point was how the flaws systematically targeted certain groups. I mean, if you're black, the chance you'll be a false positive is much greater, for all the wrong reasons.
So the current trend of the Sup Ct is that, even if there's an inevitable systemic failure in your law leading to false positives, you have to at least ensure: 1. for all practicable purposes it's impossible to avoid, and 2. that it doesn't systemically target blacks more than whites. The first is hard but not impossible. But no state system has yet really achieved the second ... and if push came to shove those rules couldn't survive a Sup Ct challenge under that line.
So the argument isn't just that there are false positives, but that they are inherently unfair as a matter of due process, striking them out as invalid. And the argument isn't that a lesser punishment is more deserving. If a rule is void for being a violation of due process, it's out because it's void, not because another punishment is thought better.
By the way, there's another angle where the argument has some traction too. The idea is that the whole legal foundation in liberal democracies has to be on consent of the governed. And pretty much by definition, no one can consent to unauthorized murder by the state. If you take that principle seriously, then it doesn't matter whether the state murder was an honest mistake or not. If there're any false positives at all, so the argument goes, the state simply doesn't have the legitimacy (built on consent) to use the death penalty. The state just doesn't have the power to legislate citizen deaths unless it's 100% sure it's authorized. (And the thing about these cases is it's almost impossible to use a "100% sure" standard). I'm not saying it's the best argument, but if you follow it, it has a certain logic.
I'm not a big fan of the death penalty, for one thing because it's so easily politicized, so people are getting killed more to make a political statement than because of the merits of their case. And because in practice, it's hard to get working in a way you can feel comfortable with (e.g., way more false positives of blacks, problems dealing with exculpatory evidence, etc...) It seems to be on steadier ground when those things aren't as much a problem, e.g., hanging Nazis or war criminals.
If a state is going to insist on a death penalty because voters have the insatiable passion to demand it (though not to actually study it), I think it needs to be set up right so that it doesn't get politicized or so unfair it undermines due process and basic fairness ... possibly impossible goals, but certainly some systems are better than others, and you want the better ones.
Tocky on 9/3/2009 at 05:49
In order to prevent injustice we settle for a lesser justice then. Best we can do since we could never achieve justice in the first place. But there is no reason for parole for murder. A life in jail for a life is as close as we can come. It also has the benefit of release due to exculpatory evidence although we can't give back those years. Lesser justice is the best we can do.
Scots Taffer on 9/3/2009 at 06:44
Quote Posted by Shug
That doesn't even make sense
The sentence may have been poorly worded in retrospect, but I don't see how it doesn't make sense - the death penalty is an absolute in terms of punishment, the person guilty is murdered and that decision cannot be overturned, hence one would require the legal system and judgement putting them away to be watertight and pretty absolute.
Yet history reveals many cases of wrongful execution and far too much personal bias and corruption creeping into investigations that lead to death penalties being awarded. Unsurprisingly, I suspect this is due to the fact that the crimes themselves are often terrible in nature and as such negatively charge the emotions of all those involved.
Quote Posted by Tocky
In order to prevent injustice we settle for a lesser justice then.
This.
I view the whole correctional/rehabilitation system as irredeemably flawed anyway, but as long as life without parole is an option then I prefer it to execution where there may lie cases of wrongful conviction.
