Lets talk about how fucked up and shitty the Death Penalty is - The Something Awful Forums

Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Lets talk about how fucked up and shitty the Death Penalty is

bitterandtwisted: Sep 4, 2006

hakimashou posted:

No consideration given to justice?

I don't see why when "Justice" is just your subjective opinion on what is fair. You want punishments to reflect the emotive reaction you have to a crime.
I mean, how can I argue against this:

hakimashou posted:

A murderer has given up his right to live by murdering someone

beyond saying "Says you"?

You believe bad guys "deserve" to be killed. Presumably humanely.
I've heard other people get really creative about how bad guys should be executed and how "humane" executions are not justice - bad guys are supposed to suffer after all. What makes their justice less vaild than yours?

Personally I don't give a poo poo about what people deserve, just what they need.
The law should be dispassionate and objective and based around rehabilitation, deterrence and protecting the public

Not pandering to people's bloodlust.

# ¿ Feb 27, 2017 12:32

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 20:31

bitterandtwisted: Sep 4, 2006

hakimashou posted:

Not bad guys, people guilty of murder.

:nallears:

hakimashou posted:

You can't be absolutely certain in every case that perpetrator is guilty, but you can in some cases.

In those cases surely the guilty should be executed.

1) no you can't
2) lol at basing a sentence on how sure you are they're guilty.

A conviction must be safe or not safe. Giving the death sentence on the grounds you're real sure the'yre guilty is exactly as stupid as giving someone 6 months for murder if the case was really weak.
In practice if this happened then of course every murder case would end with the death penalty because to do otherwise would be to tacitly admit the conviction was unsafe

# ¿ Feb 28, 2017 08:13

bitterandtwisted: Sep 4, 2006

Having no death penalty is just as unfeasible as having no taxes. I mean can you name a country with no death penalty? Didn't think so.

# ¿ Feb 28, 2017 10:32

bitterandtwisted: Sep 4, 2006

hakimashou posted:

I disagree. It's easy to think of examples where evidence would demonstrate guilt.

We already base the severity of sentencing in some cases on how sure we are the perpetrator is guilty.

If we know somone killed someone else but can't be sure of their mental state, for example whether the crime was premeditated, we sometimes convict them of murder in a less harshly punished degree.

There are also cases where somone possesses some proscribed items, but their punishment hinges on how sure we can be that they intended to distribute them. Another example is hate crimes.

It also seems to me that if we accept the idea we can never truly prove anyone guilty of any crime, then we ought never to impose harsh punishments for anything.

You convict someone with a shitload of drugs because it's beyond reasonable doubt that it's for more than personal use. They don't have more evidence of the crime of drug possession, they have sufficient evidence of a different crime -intent to supply.
It's not about proving absolute guilt, just proving it beyond reasonable doubt.

# ¿ Feb 28, 2017 13:59

bitterandtwisted: Sep 4, 2006

hakimashou posted:

But what if they just really really like getting high and wanted to buy in bulk?

You can't read someone's mind, and can't trust what they say. There are provisions in the law where guilt is presumed based on some threshold of evidence, like X amount of drugs, but a jury can still refuse to convict if they aren't sufficiently convinced.

Different degrees of murder are better examples anyway.

John hits George with his car and kills him. Does John get life without parole? The death penalty? 25 years? 10? Is he not punished at all? Does he just have to give George's family money?

It all depends on how sure we are of his guilt, even if we know for sure that it happened.

If it's beyond reasonable doubt he was to blame, it's manslaughter.
If it's also beyond reasonable doubt it was a deliberate killing, it's murder.
Those are different crimes.

Other factors that can affect the sentence length are motive (eg hate crime) and prior convictions, but that's not extra evidence of guilt of either of those crimes, that's evidence they represent a clear danger and/or are more likely to re-offend.

Degrees of murder don't exist in my country so I can't comment much on that distinction.

# ¿ Feb 28, 2017 14:30

bitterandtwisted: Sep 4, 2006

fuckin

:lol:

# ¿ Feb 28, 2017 19:22

bitterandtwisted: Sep 4, 2006

Are you drunk or just daft?
I was mocking that post you just quoted. My own country has no death penalty.

# ¿ Feb 28, 2017 19:52

bitterandtwisted: Sep 4, 2006

No worries

# ¿ Feb 28, 2017 20:00

bitterandtwisted: Sep 4, 2006

You're leaving morality aside and the death penalty serves no practical purpose so what's the point of that compromise?

# ¿ Mar 1, 2017 18:31

bitterandtwisted: Sep 4, 2006

hakimashou posted:

Some people believe it is somehow wrong to execute guilty murderers.

Harming people is bad.
Murderers are people.

Big bad thing worse than small bad thing.
Jailing murderers in safe secure environment less bad than letting murderers do their thing.

Death greater bad than detainment in safe secure environment while conferring no other advantage.

Therefore killing murderers is bad.

# ¿ Mar 3, 2017 09:55

bitterandtwisted: Sep 4, 2006

hakimashou posted:

I don't know if that's my logic unless you just read that one post.

My (Kant's) actual logic goes something like:

A person who chooses commit murder also chooses to die at the hands of an executioner. The justification for doing it is that we have an obligation to treat the killer as an equal, a human being, with human dignity, and the right to make choices about his own life and have them be respected.

One of the most difficult Kantian positions is that we owe punishment to the perpetrator and act wrongly, by him, if we don't impose it.

You could apply it to literally any punishment/crime combination no matter how cruel and unusual.

PYF most dignified execution everyone! Mine is the electric chair where people's faces literally melt off. That's quality dignity.

bitterandtwisted fucked around with this message at 10:24 on Mar 4, 2017

# ¿ Mar 4, 2017 10:12

bitterandtwisted: Sep 4, 2006

hakimashou posted:

You missed it.

The choice to commit murder is also the choice to be executed, they are inseparable and one and the same. The act of committing murder is the act of choosing to be executed.

The very easy solution to the problem is "don't what to get executed? don't commit murder."

You could say the same for any crime/punishment combination, no matter how draconian, cruel and pointless.
The choice to commit theft is also the choice to have your hands amputated.
The choice to blaspheme is also the choice to be stoned to death.

etc

# ¿ Mar 4, 2017 12:22

bitterandtwisted: Sep 4, 2006

hakimashou posted:

I could probably say that stuff but I don't think I would.

Come to think of it I could say anything!

Are you going to even attempt to explain why those are different?

# ¿ Mar 4, 2017 12:25

bitterandtwisted: Sep 4, 2006

hakimashou posted:

They aren't punishments that fit the crimes, like the death penalty for murder is.

Irrelevant (also I disagree)

"can't do the time, don't do the crime" exists to justify extreme punishment, not proportional punishment. Explain in the terms you used ie choice and dignity why chopping off hands is wrong as a punishment for theft

# ¿ Mar 4, 2017 12:48

bitterandtwisted: Sep 4, 2006

hakimashou posted:

Don't get too worked up over that. "Don't want to get executed, don't murder anyone" is just helpful advice, not some fundamental theory of justice. It might or might not exist to justify extreme punishment, but it is itself justified by fair and proportional punishment. Consider it phrased differently, but meaning the same thing: "don't want to receive a fair and just punishment, in proportion to the crime you have done? Don't do the crime." Now any objection based on some other person, somewhere else, using it to justify something different can be set aside.

An excessive or disproportionate punishment is arbitrary, and treating people arbitrarily instead of according to their deserts, based on their choices, means not treating them as an equal with equal dignity.

All punishment based on subjective notions of fairness are arbitrary.

# ¿ Mar 4, 2017 13:26

bitterandtwisted: Sep 4, 2006

hakimashou posted:

That's probably less true when it comes to executing murderers than it is for anything else.

Why?

# ¿ Mar 4, 2017 13:38

bitterandtwisted: Sep 4, 2006

hakimashou posted:

Proportionality seems to be the least subjective notion of fair punishment.

The death penalty for murder is as proportional as you can possibly get. It's truly identical. You don't have to into account anything about the perpetrator's subjective experience of the punishment, or the victim's subjective experience of the wrong, since they are both identically dead.

No such thing as "least subjective". It's either subjective or it's not.

Death is the same for both parties, but that's true of manslaughter as well as murder. Why is it disproportionate for negligence deaths?

# ¿ Mar 4, 2017 14:18

bitterandtwisted: Sep 4, 2006

hakimashou posted:

See above.

You didn't answer it above.

You said death was proportionate as a punishment because death is the same for both killer and victim.
But death is the same for both regardless of intent or malice.

# ¿ Mar 4, 2017 14:32

bitterandtwisted: Sep 4, 2006

hakimashou posted:

Not true, there is a discussion above about guilt and culpability. Also any post that touches on the categorical imperative. It's up there.

You said:

quote:

The death penalty for murder is as proportional as you can possibly get. It's truly identical. You don't have to take into account anything about the perpetrator's subjective experience of the punishment, or the victim's subjective experience of the wrong, since they are both identically dead.

ie the justification for the death penalty being proportionate is that both the victim and killer have the same experience
This is not changed by guilt.
This is not changed by culpability

# ¿ Mar 5, 2017 14:26

bitterandtwisted: Sep 4, 2006

the trump tutelage posted:

Well I phrased it as I did for a reason -- "maintaining a sense of", ie. it's performative. It's purely a leap of faith that morality is objective. If morality was demonstrably objective then there would be no necessity of "maintaining" a "sense" of it any more than there is in maintaining a sense of oxygen or gravity.

Imagine I said that it's important to go to church to maintain a sense of the divine, and it was countered with "well prove God exists, then. Give me a scenario where God's existence is assumed by default, but can't by demonstrated, and explain why it is." It's absurd.

So yes, act as though morality is objective, because the alternative is not more persuasive and its implications are horrifying.

Specifically, you're acting as though your moral opinions are objectively correct. That's a lot more horrifying to anyone who doesn't hold them.

For example, I'm guessing you disapprove of executing people for being gay or apostasy or whatever, even though those in favour of it are completely convinced their moral views are the objectively correct one?

Why not leave out the moral aspect from the justice system?

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 11:11

bitterandtwisted: Sep 4, 2006

hakimashou posted:

Justice is a word about morality.

In a purely utilitarian 'justice system' you could have situations where wrongdoers are secretly rewarded for their crimes instead of being punished.This is against many people's moral intuitions.

:raise:

go on?

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 13:18

bitterandtwisted: Sep 4, 2006

hakimashou posted:

Apologies for the long post but it's kind of a complex thought experiment, I've tried to keep it as brief as possible, please bear that in mind if I've omitted anything.

If the only aims of punishment are utilitarian- to deter crime and keep the public safe from dangerous people, then the aims can be fulfilled without actually punishing wrongdoers.

lets say some hypothetical future utilitarians, in a time when technology has largely alleviated the conditions of resource scarcity we face today, as well as the difficulty in proving criminal accusations, impose a draconian punishment for sexual assault. Anyone proved guilty is carted off to Horror Island and tortured for many years, then executed. No one convicted of rape is ever seen again. Terror of this cruel fate deters people from committing the crime. And no one ever reoffends.

It is not necessary for the deterrent effect that the guilty are actually tortured and executed, as long as people believe it has happened. Horror Island could in fact be a paradise where the criminals live out the rest of their lives in sumptuous luxury with their every need and hedonistic desire fulfilled- as long as it is kept secret.

To committed utilitarians, this would be a better outcome than any form of punishment being levied against the guilty, since it would make life better for a greater number of people than would actually punishing them. To wit, the criminals themselves.

The only utilitarian objections to this are about the resources required, but since it is a hypothetical meant to illustrate a point not connected to resources, any necessary modification can be made to meet them. Any objection based on the pragmatism of these secret rewards is irrelevant, because whether or not it is possible is no objection to whether or not it would be just, if it were.

Some people, truly committed utilitarians, bite the bullet and admit that if possible, secret rewards would be better than punishments for some crimes.

Some people refuse to take a position and try to mire the issue in irrelevencies.

Others have moral intutitions or beliefs about justice that dispose them to believe it would be wrong.

It's not a thought experiment meant to discredit utilitarianism or prop up moral theories, just to explore your own beliefs and moral intuitions. If you think secret rewards would be wrong, not just impractical, its worth pondering "why?"

If we have no resource scarcity why not make the world like that for everyone?

Back in the real, non-star trek world, can you conceive of anything remotely like this occurring?

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 14:22

bitterandtwisted: Sep 4, 2006

wateroverfire posted:

"Justice" as a concept doesn't make any sense without a moral code that describes what is just. Choosing to execute murderers vs jailing them vs fining them vs counseling them vs I don't know...forcing them to pay weregild... all involve moral judgements about the value of life, the moral status of murder, accountability, etc. You can't really have a justice system that escapes from morality.

You can evaluate punishments on how well they do at protecting the public, deterring others and rehabilitating the offender. Objective standards that can be measured, not a feeling about what someone deserves.

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 14:27

bitterandtwisted: Sep 4, 2006

rudatron posted:

Public protection is just one aspect of criminal justice and the utility of punishment.
That's the basis of a democratic society. If that's troubling, don't worry - undemocratic societies have a much worse record on oppression. At some point you have to trust in the ability of ordinary people to make the right decision, eventually.

But my point about bringing up the popular support was to simply suggest that there is an advantage to capital punishment over life imprisonment. The idea of a 'final' punishment for certain crimes, does seems to fit in with a lot of what people consider real 'justice'.

Practically speaking, the justice system also requires public legitimacy in order to function at all. If most people think that some crimes deserve capital punishment, and anything less is unjust, then that's what you do, because you need people to trust the justice system in general.

Is capital punishment for blasphemy good if at least 50% support it?

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 17:07

bitterandtwisted: Sep 4, 2006

the trump tutelage posted:

Define "good".

Good in the opinion of forums poster rudatron

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 17:14

bitterandtwisted: Sep 4, 2006

rudatron posted:

You'll notice I didn't use the word 'good' because that's not a precise term. I feel like I've already laid my cards on the table here, so stop fishing and make your point.

Would you be in favour of it?

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 17:19

bitterandtwisted: Sep 4, 2006

rudatron posted:

No.

Now that I've satisfied what I'm sure was just honest curiosity, would you like to engage my point?

That's the basis of a democratic society. If that's troubling, don't worry - undemocratic societies have a much worse record on oppression. At some point you have to trust in the ability of ordinary people to make the right decision, eventually.

The idea of a 'final' punishment for blasphemy, does fit in with a lot of what people consider real 'justice'.

If most people think that blasphemy deserves capital punishment, and anything less is unjust, then that's what you do, because you need people to trust the justice system in general.

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 17:26

bitterandtwisted: Sep 4, 2006

Smudgie Buggler posted:

I am. At least, in theory. Permanent, cheap neutralisation of extremely bad people could easily be well worth some false positives.

Well i guess if it's cheap it's ok

# ¿ Mar 14, 2017 14:03

bitterandtwisted: Sep 4, 2006

Smudgie Buggler posted:

"I pretend that the social is not necessarily the economic with no consequences"

What are you even trying to say here I can't parse it

# ¿ Mar 14, 2017 14:18

bitterandtwisted: Sep 4, 2006

Why even have trials? If a cop's sure he knows who the bad guy is he can shoot them and we'd save loads of money for the cost of a few false positives.

# ¿ Mar 14, 2017 14:22

bitterandtwisted: Sep 4, 2006

Smudgie Buggler posted:

I dropped an operative verb, but I'm sure you were really quite able to piece it together.

You have trials because you're not willing to tolerate as many false positives as you'd get without them.

Pretty obvious really. Stupid question.

what's the cutoff point for amount of innocent people you are happy to kill?

# ¿ Mar 14, 2017 15:01

bitterandtwisted: Sep 4, 2006

The evidence against you is lovely so I sentence you to 1 year for murder.

# ¿ Mar 14, 2017 18:17

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 20:31

bitterandtwisted: Sep 4, 2006

Infinite Karma posted:

There is the "beyond a shadow of a doubt" evidentiary standard that isn't used in the U.S., which is stricter than "beyond a reasonable doubt."

It wouldn't be impossible to codify a law that said the death penalty requires a higher evidentiary standard as well as aggravating circumstances.

Where is it used?
Wound't that result in every case being tried under the 'beyond shadow of a doubt' standard because to do otherwise would be to admit the conviction was unsafe?

Do they also have a "lovely" evidentiary standard where you get community service for murder because they're really not convinced you did it?

E: what would be an example of a case that, to you, passes the 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard but not 'beyond shadow of a doubt'?

bitterandtwisted fucked around with this message at 14:22 on Mar 19, 2017

# ¿ Mar 19, 2017 14:19

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Lets talk about how fucked up and shitty the Death Penalty is

Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.2.9 (SABB-v2.24.04)
Copyright ©2000, 2001, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright ©2024, Jeffrey of YOSPOS