Lord Jim wrote:Absolutely the life of the murderer has value...
Which is precisely why justice demands that it be made forfeit...
If the life of the murderer had no value, then their being compelled to give it up would have no meaning.
That's the fundamental, central problem I have with DP opponents; they have the moral dimension of this exactly backwards...
I'm just curious...if the killing of an innocent person demands the sort of "justice" that can only be satisfied by the death of another person--specifically the person (or persons) responsible for the first death....
How can justice be achieved when the state (occasionally, but inevitably) executes an innocent person? Who must then be killed so that the scales of justice are balanced????? (And don't tell me that no, that could never happen...that the criminal justice system *NEVER* makes mistakes.)
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
— God@The Tweet of God
Big RR wrote:The truth is good, but is it enough? I don't think the truth accomplishes much if the status quo is retained. Imagine those who profited from the systematic robbery and extermination of jews and others at the hands of the Nazis were permitted to just say "sorry" and keep their ill-gotten gains. Or those profited by the systematic putting down of others (like in our own civil rights history) could just say "sorry" and retain their preferred status. I think justice demands more in the way of reparations and disgorgement of monies/advantages to address the ocncerns of the victims and society at large.
And still, the further, the justifiable outrage of a people is not addressed. Persons who were tortured and maimed or who lost loved ones at the hands of others may well demand more than the "sorry, let me be on my way". Not that any justice system should give them that eye for an eye, but how do we deal with this. We as a species do seem to focus a lot on revenge/punishment.
I think you've changed topics from the justification for the DP to other issues.
But I think what those examples show is that when most aspects of justice are impossible to have we cannot get along with some way of determining the truth and presenting it. The truth is not all that is desired but it is irreducibly important.
I don't think I am straying anymore than you did. I read your post to say that justice cannot require us to do something impossible, while I say something will not be perceived as justice unless the aggrieved somehow feel comfortable with the result. Which is why I think the death penalty is so attractive to some in the eye for an eye sense (as Jim alludes to in his posts defending it).
As for the truth being important, I would think it is to many, but I think others want some sort of retribution whatever the truth/reasons behind the act are. I may have killed someone for a justifiable reason, but for some bereaved persons that reason does not matter. Granted they will likely care if I am the actual killer, but beyond that, they don't need anymore of the truth.
And for some, even whether I am the actual killer doesn't matter so long as they can believe I am (much as many cheered on the invasion of Iraq after the 9/11 attacks, when Saddam had little to nothing to do with them--but that's for another thread). Expressing one's outrage becomes paramount, even if it is misdirected; and the death penalty is the ultimate expression of outrage, and makes the powerless, even if only for a moment, fell powerful and able to protect ourselves.
And IMHO that is the problem with a justice system; in the abstract truth is a paramount concern; as a sociological construct, not so much.
I must admit that my own position on the DP is on rather weak foundations.
If the death penalty were enforced within a reasonable amount of time (say one month after the trial and no later), then I'd be closer to being a supporter. One of the things I find intolerable is the 8-10-more years that these things drag out - it seems to be cruel but usual - not to mention the expense. If yer gonna top 'em, then top 'em.
If jail-time were more a deprivation of life, then I'd be further away from supporting the DP. I have the nagging anger that, awful as prison may be, it just isn't awful enough for killers (and rapists and child molesters and a few other categories). No TV - no exercise equipment - no library. Give 'em a 6x4, a bunk and a hole in the ground. It isn't about rehab - it's about punishment.
As it is, I'm only just a "death from life imprisonment" advocate and my fear there is that it doesn't actually happen. Too many who deserve "death" (execution or just dying of natural causes without ever getting out) actually do get out.
Of course, I recognize the possibility of an innocent being executed - it's happened. If it's happened there, then I have to assume it's happened that some number of innocent people have lived the remainder of their life in prison. Does that mean there should be no prisons?
The rationale for capital punishment I think is - finite and final punishment. Life for a life. You kill - you die. For relatives and friends of a victim, retribution plays its part. For society - it's the ultimate rejection of one who has forfeited the right to be accepted.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
The many exonerations in recent years shows why we desperately need the appeals process, and it is necessarily lengthy because our criminal justice system is chronically overburdened and underfunded.
I think, Meade, that you may be under the influence of propaganda if you don't think prison is already a pretty miserable place to be in this country; that said there are certain basic conditions that should be adhered to by any civilized nation in the process of incarcerating criminals. Yes it's about punishment, but it's about rehabilitation too - we only harm ourselves by treating inmates (many of whom will someday again walk free in society) worse than if they were animals.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
bigskygal wrote:we only harm ourselves by treating inmates (many of whom will someday again walk free in society) worse than if they were animals.
That's an important point to remember: most inmates will indeed have to rejoin society in some way, one day.
We free citizens, as their captors, ought to admit that fact, and admit that we're the ones who have at least a degree of control over how they decide to live the rest of their lives. (And if the only lesson they learn is "Next time don't get caught," that's not enough.)
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
— God@The Tweet of God
Sorry, I thought I was clear that prison should be more horrible for killers, rapists, child molesters - all of whom should never get out. No rehabilitation. Just death by staying in prison until they cork off
Rehab the burglars, the druggies, the check bouncers, etc.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Meade--I understand your revulsion at what they did, but if rehabilitation is possible, why not at least try it? Granted the safeguards may have to be tightened in some cases to avoid dangerous persons getting out (and in some cases rehabilitation may not be attainable, but if someone can be truly rehabilitated and is not a risk, doesn't it make sense to eventually let them back into society?
Indeed, if rehabilitation is not possible, what is the point of punishment; I used to punish my kids to have them learn how they should or should not act (Rehabilitation IMHO); absent that, what is the purpose of punishment?
There is only one purpose of punishment - to exact consequences upon the perpetrator. Punishment never "rehabilitated" anyone.
Conditioning behavior to avoid punishment is not rehabilitation, any more than a ringing bell is food to a salivating dog. Rehabilitation comes through education, as with your children when you explained better choices and how to make them. Merely bashing them upside the head is punishment without rehabilitation
And no, I don't care if murderers, rapists and child molesters are ever rehabilitated - as long as they are kept in prison until they die
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Meade--I believe positive and negative conditioning can help to vary behavior. Clearly teaching aids in letting people know the difference between right and wrong, but knowing inevitable consequences await for bad acts helps as well.
As for exacting "consequences on the perpetrator", to what end do you exact these consequences?
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
(And don't tell me that no, that could never happen...that the criminal justice system *NEVER* makes mistakes.)
