Thirith on 11/11/2009 at 18:14

---

As far as I'm concerned, the absoluteness, the irrevocability of it puts it in an altogether different category from the others, Wormrat.

Edit: In way after DDL...

Thirith on 11/11/2009 at 18:20

---

What about the US having signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? I seem to remember an article about the right to life, without the caveat of "... unless we deem it right to kill their pathetic, low-life asses." At the very least it strikes me as hypocritical. (Obviously the US isn't alone in being hypocritical about the declarations it signs, mind you.)

Rug Burn Junky on 11/11/2009 at 18:55

---

I've made this argument so many times I've lost count - there are probably a half dozen screeds I've posted on TTLG alone on this very subject. The best example to drive (har-har) the point home for people is speeding. Watch the cars on a highway when: * you pass a sign that states the exorbitant fines for speeding; or * you pass a cop car.
You tell me which causes people to tap their breaks, and it's not even close.

At the end of the day, it's pretty simple to me, there are too many reasons that the death penalty is just plain misguided:

* the utilitarian deterrent effect is nonexistent;
* its hypocritical to engage in the same wrongful behaviour that one is punishing, undermining the message and failing to curb society's routine acceptance of violence. (Wormrat's snarky dismissal of this argument is cute, but it's misguided beyond even the finality that others have mentioned. In those instances, the state actions are necessary to achieve a compelling state interest, and narrowly tailored to do so. The death penalty is so often an end in and of itself, and is not even close to the minimum means necessary);
* the State is interested in justice, and vengeance should not be a consideration as it so often is. "Eye for an eye" is escalatory - Having the state engage in it diffuses it somewhat, but does little to change the mindset;
* the poor implementation of the death penalty makes it a virtual certainty that innocent people have been killed (*cough*Cameron Todd Willingham*cough*); and
* the (currently inadequate) safeguards necessary to prevent the killing of innocents means that death penalty cases cost far more than just locking someone up for life would.


On a visceral level, I really don't have a problem with John Allen Muhammad's death, he's pretty indefensible. But on any intellectual level, it's counterproductive. That's the thing about civilized justice, the hard part is to do the right thing for society even if the application on a specific individual goes against your base instincts. So many simple-minded people see this only when things go badly for one person: "tough shit, suck it up, them's the rules" (and even worse, they trot this out usually only in the discussion of bad rules). Those same people are blind when it comes to the inverse - sometimes you simply can't have the bad things you want to have happen to people on a karmic level, because it's not in everybody's best interest to have a system that would do so.

Given that stance, I find the case of Nidal Hasan far more interesting. I can justify and understand his execution, should it come to that, because the nature of the military demands far more, and the punishment for a breach of that code needs to reflect that. I find it incredibly interesting that, given the harsh nature of military justice, death penalty cases in the military are so rarely followed through.

Rug Burn Junky on 11/11/2009 at 20:01

---

You're not as smart as you think you are. (Hint: that was the argument that Iam making. Not everything's about you, chump.)

Aerothorn on 11/11/2009 at 20:31

---

I don't think a robot would use highly-judgemental terms like "sick pleasure."