Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Death Penalty and the Enlightenment
After studying the Enlightenment, especially the philosophy of Beccaria, what are your thoughts on capital punishment today? Please read a description of Beccaria’s major philosophical ideas to remind you(http://www.iep.utm.edu/beccaria/) as well as a news article from the LA Times about an upcoming issue for the Supreme Court on limiting life prison terms for the young (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/dcnow/2009/11/us-supreme-court-considers-limiting-life-prison-terms-for-youths.html ). What are your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ok, so again, I suppose I’ll start us off… For the sake of it, I’ll try advocating a position that will most likely not be very popular with any of you, even those who are proponents of capital punishment. I’ll start with my claim statement. I believe that punishments ought not fit the crime and should in fact be draconian in nature (and for those of us who don’t remember Draco from last year, draconian laws were laws that were considered unnecessarily harsh and tough on crime) in order to best serve society.
ReplyDeleteBefore you guys all start the witch hunt and come after me, let me explain. Draconian is usually a word made in reference to Draco’s laws (no duh, hence Draconian) which were considered harsh and severe. The reason that Draconian laws better serve society is because it provides a stronger deterrent and stronger consequence for doing a certain crime. For example, one is less likely to speed and go 80 mph if the ticket fine is negligible and for many wealthy people, it is. A few hundred dollars to them is no problem. However, the inherent flaw in putting a fine or a punishment on crime is that that equates to a price for crime. If one has more than enough resources to make such a price not matter, then there is no efficient deterrent to doing the crime. So back to my speeding example, if a wealthy person knows there is a few hundred dollars fined to them if they speed, but they spent 100k buying this new Porsche, for them, a few hundred dollars is a low enough price to pay that it won’t act as a strong enough deterrent against speeding. Insofar as people realize that speeding=ticket, if the ticket fine isn’t high enough, then there will be no reason not so speed. Therefore, in order for a crime to be truly deterred, the punishment needs to be higher in proportion to the crime, or else it’s not an effective deterrent.
Ok, so you’ve just heard me ramble about the ineffectiveness of making a punishment fit the crime. Now let’s actually approach the issue of the death penalty. I believe that the death penalty is something that can be justified and should be used in cases where there is no doubt as to a person’s guilt. There are a few reasons:
1. When a person is part of a society, they partake in a societal contract with the government and the rest of society. In this contract, people promise each other that they won’t do certain things such as kill, steal, and rob, et cetera, for the betterment of society. The death penalty acts a punishment mechanism for those whose crimes we cannot match in any way without committing them ourselves. Insofar as we need to commit *some* sort of punishment, we have to go with a Draconian punishment. But we can’t do anything more than take someone’s life without dehumanizing them, so that is what we should do. If you commit a crime on the scale where you can’t measure it, then why should those criminals be allowed to keep their lives? They broke the rules, they pay the consequences.
2. Life sentence is not the same as the death penalty. People will argue that we should just put these people in prison for the rest of their lives, but capital punishment is preferred for a few reasons. First, a life sentence in prison is the same thing as a death sentence, since those criminals are expected to die in prison. Well, insofar as they are the same thing, then we prefer capital punishment since that is more efficient and quicker. Also, a life sentence gives criminals a chance to escape, which is just as problematic since they get away, meaning we can’t fully punish them.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_escape
That site has plenty of examples where prisoners were able to escape, some even getting away and beating the system. That should be taken as evidence that life imprisonment is faulty and the death penalty is better. Second, the death penalty is cheaper. Even if you can argue that life imprisonment and the death penalty are one and the same, you still prefer the death penalty since it costs less. One of the most efficient ways would be by firing squad, which unfortunately isn’t used very much anymore in favor of death by injection. However, the cost of maintaining the security and upkeeps of a prison is much higher in comparison, and there are so many high costs that just from a money standpoint, the death penalty is much more preferred. In the death penalty, you don’t need to pay for guards, staffing, food, high security cells, basic amenities, security of the entire facility, etc. With the death penalty, you really only need to pay for the bullets or the chemicals used. I know that sounds dehumanizing, but that’s the cold truth.
Now, facing the issue of life prison terms for children under 18. Depending on the age, I would argue that the punishment differs. A 8 year old should not be held to the same standards as a 22 year old, if only because this child is too young to understand the concepts at hand. However, a 15-18 year old is fully capable of understanding what is at risk and the consequences of his/her actions, and therefore should be held to that same standard.
sorry about the double posts, it was too many characters.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Justin.
ReplyDeleteI respectfully disagree with the idea that Draconian punishments be implemented. While in the short term it makes sense, and in our life times the new more severe punishments would serve as great deterrents, we must think about the long term consequences of over-disciplining. Using the speeding ticket example while at first people would be outraged at the new cost, over time it would become a part of society, and in the public eye it would not seem so ridiculous. Mind you it would take a long time, Beccaria too argued this point. By your logic after a while once the public had gotten used to the idea of paying so much for a ticket, odds are people would still be speeding, and the government would implement yet even more costly tickets. At a certain point there is a limit to how severly we can punish certain actions and if we were to pursue this limit we would find ourselves a captive society.
Now ethically I'm against capital punishment, but I understand where you're coming from when looking at the situation financially. However, history has proven time and time again the prospect of death does not deter one who plans on comitting a murder. Now the thought of life in prison doesn't stop murderer's either, but to the observer it does seem much more daunting. While the cost for the government may be more, I do not think it's detrimental to the national budget and I'm willing shell out tax money to protect the most basic right of humans. I would also like to respectfully refute the idea that the possibility of prison escapes are grounds for execution. Modern prison's experience very few escapes and if one is to focus on them it shows that the motive for punishment is revenge and not reform.
I hold the opinion that capital punishment is not an effective way of reforming a criminal, not a deterrent to crime, but most importantly immoral and wrong.
ReplyDeleteWhile one might argue that murderer's should be murdered I disagree. As someone who strongly believes in existentialism I think that as humans, when we look past everything else we only have our existence. Our lives. That is the most basic right of man, and that is to exist. No government should have the power to take that away from it's citizens. Similarly no man should be able to get away with taking life either. While I do agree with Justin in that life imprisonment is financially inefficient, I think it is our obligation to our fellow man to allow them to live. One can also hold the argument that spending a majority of one's life in prison is a fate far worse than death, and therefore a just punishment. If we wanted to hold true Beccaria's idea of reform we could say that the time given to the man in prison is time he can spend reforming himself. Regardless of the fact they will not reenter society one would hope that they could find peace within themselves. I do not think that people who kill other people should be treated well, respected, or given sympathy, but I do believe they have the right to live.
@ Steven: Answer me these questions, or someone answer for him:
ReplyDelete1. If you're against the death penalty and you want to preserve human autonomy and the right to life, then what do you support as an alternative? Can you suggest a better system?
2. So you agree that these people do not deserve basic rights like basic freedom, but they are due their life? What is life without freedom? The concept of imprisonment is to limit freedom. Doesn't that seems contradictory coming from someone who believes that no government should be allowed to take our basic rights?
3. Where does this obligation to our fellow man come from? Is he really our fellow man, since he just killed or did worse things to another fellow man? Do we just sweep it under the rug and continue as though nothing happened? How can we treat this murderer or worse with the same respect or treatment as someone else?
4. You're in favor of life in prison, yet that is akin to a death sentence... What's the difference between killing someone, and holding onto to someone, not letting them do anything in a supermax prison, until they die?
In the prison, it's even worse since it a torturous experience. If anything you're worse to human life and existence since you decide you want to torture the person by holding them in prison for the rest of their life. You're too idealistic to even hope that a man in prison will reform themselves, and even then, what's the point? They aren't going to reenter society, so the impact of either way is moot since there is no impact at all, since this guy's staying in supermax until he dies.
In defense of Draconian consequences:
ReplyDeleteSteven, you're misinterpreting what I'm saying with my analogy of speeding. I'm not saying that society is used to the few hundred dollars, making it ineffective. I'm saying that when we put a consequence on these actions, that is the same as putting a price tag. You can speed, but only if you pay X amount of money. As long as X is an amount you're ok with, you can speed. That's the implied statement. However, if X is something ridiculously high, then you won't ever be ok with paying X, since it's that high.
That's the advantage to Draconian consequences. They shouldn't be doing these actions in the first place, and if they do, they should be fully punished for it, no?
Justin,
ReplyDeleteYour applying logic to a question of morals. I really like logic and reason, but there are some things that I cast those aside with. There are certain things that to me are visceral reactions or gut instincts, and they sometimes go against logic.
To answer number 1,
while of course there's many inefficiencies in the prison system today I don't have enough problems with it to radically change it. Maybe some reforms such as better documentation of prisoners and more security, but nothing too drastic. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
Number 2,
I explicitly said the one right of life. The question of what is life without freedom is a philosophical one, and while I agree it can't be much it is still existence, which I prefer over the alternative.
Number 3,
He is our fellow man as he exists as a human. Regardless of their actions a person, as long as they are living, is still human. I made a point in the last paragraph of saying that they do not need to be respected or treated well, and I would go as far as saying they should be kept in the lowest quality of life possible, and then be given the choice to die if they wish. That choice however rests in that person's hands, and nobody else (never mind the legal issues of suicide this is hypothetical.)
Number 4,
The difference is that with capital punishment you have no choice, the last and most important right you have is no longer in your hands. While in prison you still have some choice in what you do and what you think about. With execution there is no choice, someone has decided for you that you will no longer think, and no longer exist. To me that is appalling and inhumane.
In response to your last paragraph, I was stating that if the true objective of punishment was reform, that it is more likely one will reform while incarcerated than dead. I agree with you that it wouldn't benefit society and is illogical. However, as I said earlier, somethings are not a question of logic.
I understand what you're saying about Draconian laws but think about the implications. If j-walking became a $30,000 fine there would be widespread outrage. Society demands that punishment be somewhere in the ballpark of the crime. If not there's rebellion.
ReplyDeleteWell i just wrote my entire 2 paragraph long explanation on what i said, then accidentaly deleted it. :(
ReplyDeleteI am for capitol punishment.
I feel that if somebody is willing to murder somebody then they should have no problem having their own lives taken from them. I only feel that this law should apply to people over 13. When your that age u can understand that murder is inexcusable and unacceptable. But there are many acceptions to this rule. If the murder was an act of self defense then this should not apply, also if it was an obvious accident, with strong unavoidable evidence then this does not apply.
this is cameron by the way.
ReplyDeleteI think Beccaria was right in that the purpose of law enforcement should be to deter people from crime, not punish them for it. However, I do support the death penalty, but only after rehabilitation has been tried and failed.
ReplyDeleteTo me, capital punishment should be a last resort. In addition, when one is sentenced to death, the punishment is quick. A more effective deterrent would probably be the thought of dying in jail (though not much more effective if you really want to murder someone…) but I do not support life sentences without the chance of parole. It is cruel to kill all hope that a person may have for changing their life for the better, or if their mindset changes in prison they should have the right to hope that their change of heart will be recognized and perhaps their sentence shortened.
And just because someone is young doesn’t change the fact that they were fully aware of what they were doing, and thus the punishment they receive for their crime should be no different than the punishment an adult would receive for the same crime. Teenagers aren’t stupid and should be held accountable for their actions.
ReplyDeleteI agree that people have the right to life, but the death penalty is only implemented when the person has violated the social contract: that is, the contract between the person and everyone around him to preserve societal peace (please don’t make a big deal about this contract I might be thinking of the wrong thing right now). But when this person violates the contract, he/she should receive a punishment fitting to the crime. If this is death, then it is death, but try to understand why the person violated the contract in the first place, and determine whether there is any hope for the person to change.
@Justin: Draconian punishments *might* work in the short term. But most likely the people would revolt (e.g. my mom is protesting Santa Monica raising parking prices). In addition, where is the justice in having a person who ran through a red light pay a $10000 fine?? Or a parking ticket costing $1000! 1) i don't think everyone can afford this. sure, the wealthy people who own those porsches can, but not everyone has a porsche. 2) if they can afford it, i'm pretty sure they still don't want to pay that kind of money. 3) what happens if it was an accident (e.g. parking)? you got there 5 minutes too late and you have a ridiculous fine?
ReplyDeleteYes. people SHOULD be fully punished for their actions and discouraged to repeat them. but blowing things out of proportion hasn't ever really helped (try looking at the french revolution).
oh yeah. and @Cameron: self-defense doesn't really count as murder...you wouldn't get the death penalty if someone is running at you with a knife and you shoot them.
ReplyDeleteOk, i'll talk to steven first and then Arielle.
ReplyDelete@ Steven:
Before you try to apply morals without logic, think about the implications of what you are saying. Insofar as you will try to convince others that your morals are correct, which we are, it is necessary that logic be the primary tool, no? Or else, everyone would follow their own set of rules with no disregard for anyone else, if only because their gut says so. So therefore, if you want to have a moral discussion, you have to use logic. So yes, i'm going to use logic and reason to convince you.
1. That's the whole point. The system *is* broken, insofar as crime still perpetuates. How is a system that is supposed to stop crime working if we still have crime? It doesn't matter if we can't make a perfect system, we still have to try. And draconian punishments is the way to go.
2. The alternative is death. And steven, by your logic, i can lock you in a room, leave you there with no heat, little water, little food, no bed, torture you, beat you up, and as long as i don't kill you, i'm ok. As long as I keep you alive, right? This quickly leads us down a path where rights other than the right to life are required in order to be human.So yes, other rights are needed.
3. Ok.. So the murderer is a human. So? If we can justify taking everything from him, life is just the next step. I know this sounds cold hearted and all, but if we can justify making his life worse than death, then actually taking his life isn't that far of a stretch...
4. I'm sorry, but what part of life in prison in a solitary confinement cell with inhumane conditions is humane and appealing? The obvious implication here is that what you advocate is actually worse.
I'm sorry, but why does the punishment even need to be in the same city as the crime, let alone the ballpark. Saying that anarchy will ensue doesn't count unless you prove it. Can I say that I'm going to jump off the top of Chalmers to Wyler Hall and survive without a scratch? Yes, there might be a tiny tiny chance, but 99.9999999999999% of the time, i'll land and become Flat Justin (anyone heard of Flat Stanley???)
@ Arielle: Your turn. :D
ReplyDelete1. If you want to deter people from crime, then wouldn't a Draconian system do a better job? If not, why?
2. What do you define as rehabilitation? How can we be sure when we have "successfully rehabilitated" the criminal? How far do we go to try to rehabilitate the criminal?
3. Why would life in jail be a bigger deterrent than death? Life in jail has traditionally always been seen as less harsh, but if you look above to my previous analysis, you'll see that life in prison and death sentence are one and the same.
4. Can you clarify the contradiction you make in your second paragraph? If condemning someone to having no hope of getting out of prison is cruel, then explain how condemning them to death is somehow justified, and actually isn't cruel....
5. How can you tell if someone's heart has changed? Do you possess psychic abilities to see past their words and see their true character? How do you know if you have truly rehabilitated the criminal?
6. I wholeheartedly agree with your second post. Yay.
7. Draconian Punishments:
What reason and what basis from which do reason do people have when they do something wrong? You're going to argue that people will revolt over a punishment? Then that means that inside, they plan to do that crime... Otherwise why would they complain about the punishment. So therefore, draconian punishments are actually more effective. Ha.
@ cameron:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, and I wonder what you have to say about Draconian punishment...
Justin,
ReplyDeleteThis venue is for expressing your opinions or beliefs on a matter not for converting others. I'm not trying win a debate, just saying what I think. Your latest arguments here have been opinion based, on matters of speculation as to what is worse and what the point of the system of crime and punishment should. All I can say is that you hold valid,thought out views, and so do I.
@ Steven:
ReplyDeleteFair enough, this isn't the place to be converting others, but to have a lively discussion about the matters at hand.
But for the sake of the argument, can you explain how my arguments have been opinion based?
I agree, we both hold completely opposite views, but it's still worth an interesting discussion.
Well the view of what an opinion is ironically an opinion. I called them opinions because I do not think they are facts based in truth, but rather view based on educated guess.
ReplyDelete1.) I do not think people will never not commit crimes and I think there is no solution short of extermination of the human population to change it. Therefore I consider your statement based on an opinion.
2.) To me what you said is ethically okay, but like you said it's MY logic.
3.)I do not think life is the next step in taking away rights, I think it is the wall.
4.) Whether or not life in prison is better than death is one's own to decide. It's a particular view on what you would rather have, making it an opinion.
That anarchy will ensue from a government who's ONLY wrong doing is punishing beyond the crime is not proven. However that it is a large factor in anarchy is proven throughout history. i.e. Soviet Union, French Revolution, and Iran.
back @Justin:
ReplyDelete1. Here, I agree w/ Cameron. over time, the punishments would become ineffectual and that revolt i mentioned. people have a sense of fairness, at the minimum when whatever's being judged involves themselves. People would find Draconian punishments unfair and question the authority and right of the judicial system to carry out such unfair and potentially unjust punishments for petty crimes.
2. Well, i'm definitely not an expert on criminal behavior or mental states or whatever. so i'm not sure. I would ask an expert on when a criminal can be considered beyond the point of where rehabilitation is useless, and then enforce the death penalty once the criminal has reached this point.
3. Okay, well, it could be a relief for someone to die. And death is a quick punishment, maybe not even a punishment, for the criminal won't have to suffer in prison. shouldn't the criminal experience something on par to the crime? death is quick, therefore no suffering afterwards....
4. Condemning someone to no hope is cruel, because then they can't change their life. The criminal might accept that he'll be in prison for the rest of his life, and not being able to do anything about it renders him truly powerless and, personally, i think that would drive me insane. Condemning someone to death is not cruel because it the criminal can accept his fate and know that his suffering will be over soon. even though there's nothing he can do about it, he will not be powerless, because he brought it on himself.
5. again, refer to an expert.....
6. yay!!
7. how does the fact that someone has committed/plans to commit a crime, therefore complaining about the punishment, make draconian punishments more effective...? this does not prove that draconian punishments are more effective. if someone plans to do a crime then obviously the draconian method is not working.
1. So because our system will never solve for all crime, we should just stop and not try to improve the system? In saying that, you undermine all of the ingenuity and invention that has driven the 20th and the 21st century, and even the Industrial Revolution. I'm not stating an opinion that we should try to improve a system that has flaws. I'm stating my opinion when I suggest using Draconian measures. When you said my arguments were based in opinion, i thought you meant that they were logically invalid, whereas I've just misunderstood what you are saying.
ReplyDelete2. Logic is universal, which is what uniquely enables it to allow us to talk on a more ethical level without having trouble knowing what we're talking about. This is my opinion that I believe to be fact. A--> B, B-->C, Therefore, C-->A. Simple logic, and it's universal. Not mine or yours.
3. Can you clarify what you mean by the wall? If you mean the limit to what we can do, wouldn't that automatically be our lives, since our lives is the last thing anyone can take from us, since after that everything is meaningless?
4. Sure, it's my opinion, but I back it up with logic...
About that last paragraph: What do you mean by punishing beyond the crime? How would you quantify the crime, in order to say you can punish past it?
Also, how was that a factor in your 3 examples?
clarification: i meant i agree w/ steven on this point.
ReplyDelete"While in the short term it makes sense, and in our life times the new more severe punishments would serve as great deterrents, we must think about the long term consequences of over-disciplining. Using the speeding ticket example while at first people would be outraged at the new cost, over time it would become a part of society, and in the public eye it would not seem so ridiculous. Mind you it would take a long time, Beccaria too argued this point. By your logic after a while once the public had gotten used to the idea of paying so much for a ticket, odds are people would still be speeding, and the government would implement yet even more costly tickets. At a certain point there is a limit to how severly we can punish certain actions and if we were to pursue this limit we would find ourselves a captive society."
@ Arielle:
ReplyDelete1. The point of a judicial system is to perpetuate a system that prevents crime, no? Then we automatically choose Draconian punishments since they are more effective at preventing crime, regardless if they are "fair" in terms of the crime committed. How do you quantify a crime, in order to create the equal punishment?
2. But again, I'm questioning that ability to create an effective metric that we can say, "Yup he's rehabilitated." or, "Nope, we can't save him, time to strap him into the electric chair." or "I don't know yet, let's keep trying."
3.So you're arguing that the criminal should feel the same pain? How does that work? You're the one advocating rehabilitation, not revenge. Also, the phrase "an eye for an eye just makes the whole world go blind" comes to mind........
4. The same argument can be made for life in prison without parole. He brought it on himself. You're circling here, but no real argument is being made... :D
5. Again, i'm questioning the ability to do such a thing.
6. yay.
7. My argument here is that precisely because Draconian punishments are so harsh, it serves as a stronger deterrent. Which you agree with, with your mom complaining about high parking prices in Santa Monica. How often does she violate the law code and park in Santa Monica where she isn't supposed to?
Like Baccaria said, the punishment for crimes should be to benefit the community. Sometimes, the crimes committed are truly horrible, but not worthy of capitol punishment, but on the other hand, there are specific crimes that deserve that type of punishment, such as murder. If someone commits one or more murders in the first degree, should be either sentenced to the death penalty or to prison for life. Benefiting the community should be the most important thing so being rid of someone who has had the intent to murder should be kept away from society. And in my mind, the same goes for age. If someone under the age of 18 has committed first degree murder one or more times, then I believe capitol punishment applies there as well. If people think that the death penalty and life in prison is cruel and unusual, they need to realize that so is murder.
ReplyDeleteI believe in capital punishment.
ReplyDelete1st) People are not clueless! If they are not opposed to taking a life, then they shouldn’t mind losing theirs. (An eye for an eye, rather a life for a life, right?)
-“An eye for an eye” or “the law of talion” comes from several passages in the bible and Hammurabi’s Code. According to this code, the law should provide just (or equitable) reprisal for the offended party.
2nd) Life imprisonment is a fate far worse than death, because once you die, there is no more dying then. So, maybe it is a fitting punishment for those who murder and do worse… to innocent people. But prisons are overcrowded and millions of tax payer dollars go to supporting jails, and their inmates.
3rd) Many convicts, who claim to be reformed and are let out early, are sent back out into society where they continue acting immorally. The only way to eliminate the threat they pose, is to eliminate them.
4th)One: If someone breaks a law, they should expect a consequence. Two: If their own conscience won’t deter them from committing the crime, and even the knowledge that there will be a consequence won’t, then they deserve to be punished. Three: The only way to approach crime and punishment is logically, because the same morals that apply to you or any law abiding citizen, don’t apply to that criminal, who murdered or raped someone. Therefore, that criminal doesn’t deserve moral compassion, did he/she have any compassion for that unfortunate victim? No, so he/she deserves none. If they are able, and willing to take a life, by either killing or raping someone ect, then they deserve no humanity, because they have none themselves.
@ Steven:
ReplyDeleteYou said that the death penalty is immoral and wrong, but so are the crimes that those criminals have committed.
You can't apply morality to a situation in which it was completely side-stepped. In other words:The only way to approach crime and punishment is logically, because the same morals that apply to you or any law abiding citizen, don’t apply to at criminal, who murdered or raped someone.
Also, you said the death penalty is immoral, yet you support a life sentence where these criminals should be treated horribly, that's a worse fate than death, and our tax payer dollars have to pay for it.
Justin,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you the judicial system could be improved, but I honestly don't think it needs to be drastically changed. Crime is following a steady trend of decreasing,and at a rate that I accept.
Don't think that I cast logic aside, I really love the ability to reason and use analytical thinking to understand every part of a situation. However I do think logic is relative, in that it is based on things we assume to absolute truth's. There is no way to know anything forsure 100%, there is no way to know absolutely and full that I exist. While one could logically prove they exist, they assume that their definition of existence is correct. I may not have worded that correctly and it would probably make more sense if we discussed this in person, which I'd be happy to do. What I'm trying to convey is that even in geometerey we assume that the shortest distance between two points is a line, without it being known for sure. I believe morals and ethics are something we must accept as absolute truths, without knowing for sure. Once again, this is hard to put in writing, I'd like to explain it to you in class if we have time.
In my definition of the wall I meant it to mean that it should be before human life. That the wall protects human life as the only thing that cannot be taken away from someone.
I was saying that there has never been a country who's only fault was having punishments that were out of proportion to the crime. Therefore because that nation does not exist there is no example of anarchy in one such nation.
In my examples each of those nations experience a form of revolution, due in part to punishments that did not fit crimes. I am far too lazy to explain in detail the specific examples of such in each state, but I urge you to look them up and see for yourself.
I believe that capital punishment has is benefits but is overall morally wrong and ineffective. People who commit very serious crimes like murder, are aware of the consequences. They know their will be repercussions, but they continue because they don’t think they’re going to get caught. Either that, or they don’t care what happens to them. These people who completely disregard themselves and others almost on purpose, are the ones which the government cannot afford to release back into society. Does this mean they should die for their crime? Not necessarily. I’m not a supporter of the whole “An eye for an eye” saying. I don’t think it makes any beneficial difference if the criminal is locked up or executed. I think that taking a life, even someone who doesn’t deserve to have it is wrong.
ReplyDeleteYes, one could say that capital punishment is a strong deterrent to crimes, but is it really? People who are going to commit a crime worthy of capital punishment are at the point where they know what they’re about to do, (assuming the criminal is sane) and they know they will probably die for it, but they do it anyway. People are murdered, raped, beaten, robbed, and shot everyday. Being a police officers daughter, I hear about it on a more personal level than the news will tell you. In my opinion, capital punishment does little to deter criminal activity. There are always the mentally unstable, the insane, and the people who just don’t care what happens next.
Capital punishment has its benefits for those beyond help, a release. It is also cheaper for the government because they don’t have to pay for as many prisoners. However, I agree with Beccaria’s ideas, centered around what benefits society the most. I do not think that capital punishment does anything for society. The number of people it does deter are made up for by the people who are sentenced to it for crimes less than murder.
@ Cameron
ReplyDeleteI agree with you in your comment about 13 year old kids. I don't think any permanent sentence should be placed on kids younger than 13 and maybe even 14. Because not everyone develops the same way, with the same role models. Not everyone is as lucky as we are. Some kids may not understand the consequences at that time. I also agree that it shouldn't apply as a mode of self defense.
I don't agree that just because someone killed someone else, now they should die. It makes no sense, and doesn't solve anything. Sure it's making some people feel better and satisfied, but it really just causes more problems when it solves none. I believe its unnecessary and immoral.
In response to Justin's
ReplyDeleteI feel that draconian punishment would work for only a short while. It would be effective if u wanted to stop murder or things like that, but for small crimes, like if you were caught stealing from a convenience and you got your fingers chopped off or something like that. I find that just ridiculous. But I do feel that it would work for more serious crimes.
@ cameron:
ReplyDeletei see your point, and i agree to a limit. I *do* in fact think that it would work for smaller crimes, but that's a discussion for another topic.
@ steven:
i like your argument about moral truths being absolute, but insofar as we don't know what they are, and since morality is just a societal construct, we create morality using logical arguments to prove something is good or bad.
Jake here.
ReplyDeleteI personally do not favor capital punishment. Humans make mistakes, and even though these may be horrible, guilty ones, these people should have a chance to change and repent for their sins. This is like Yom Kippur, when Jewish people atone for their wrongs and hope to be better in the coming year.
When a kid is being debated on being expelled, I think they should get a chance to make up for what he or she did. In the same way, people committing capital crimes should get the same chance, and if they seem well, eventually be released from prison.
For minors, I find this especially true. Their lack of worldly experience allows them to change before they are stuck as criminals. The brain doesn't even fully develop until one is around 20 years old, which is another factor in the potential for change in the mentality for young criminals.
When potential criminals see former criminals changed and released from prison, I think it could stop them from crime more than the fear of the death penalty. They see that past criminals can live again because they have changed themselves back to nice people. This could stop potential criminals by making them see that they still have the opportunity to stay non-criminals and save themselves of many years of prison.
Wow. Arielle! You and I have very similar ideas. I read yours after I wrote mine.
ReplyDeleteMy personal opinion is an eye for an eye...a murder for a murder. ONLY. And no torturous stuff either. No electric chair, no lethal injection, no burning at the stake. Guillotine or firing squad, only. Though the guillotine is an old method, I believe it provided a quick, painless death and was more efficient than today's electric chair, hanging, or lethal injections, all of which can be botched. I believe this is somewhat similar to Beccaria's opinion as well.
ReplyDelete-Gus
@Alejandra
ReplyDelete1) when these crimes are committed, a large part of the time the people are not thinking right, so in a way ARE clueless. Perhaps they could be completely sane in the future.
1b. What happened to forgiveness/repentance? Those make for a stronger society. When others see these qualities which are truly beautiful things, they might be moved by it.
3) This is true. We need to find out some way to see if someone has truly changed. But we must not deprive them of this opportunity.
@sami
ReplyDeleteYou do bring up a good argument against non-supporters, and I agree whole-heartedly. Killers can be of any age, and just because a killer is a sadistic 11-year old doesn't mean that giving him the death sentence is immoral because he is a minor! He is KILLING people, and should therefore be killed himself! Being young doesn't exclude you from proper punishment!
I know that may sound a little radical, but I tend to sound radical with my opinions anyways.
Alejandra,
ReplyDeleteAs I've been saying with Justin, there are some morals I place before logic. Logically a killer has killed someone, therefore he should be killed. However morally I personally can't bring myself to say he deserves to die, and I regardless of how people in government personally feel about it I believe it is not their right to say it either. In my opinion life is too sacred to be put in the hands of the government.
sorry for the double posts, but wanted to add one more thing. What I'm say does suggest a double-standard, but I still stand by it.
ReplyDeleteSteven, can you explain why you differentiate morals and logic? To me at least, they go hand in hand. What is the difference between something being proven true logically or morally?
ReplyDeleteby the way, this is a random comment to gus:
ReplyDeletethey actually aren't sure if a guillotine is painless. if you look to this site:
http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/thefrenchrevolution/a/dyk10.htm
they talk about how the brain can still be aware for about 13 seconds, and might still be conscious.
@ Gus
ReplyDeleteI'm all for repentance and forgiveness. I am not, however for putting dangerouse criminals back on the streets.
"Yah, let's forgive the killer and put him back on the streets to keep killing."
If they repent, hey! that's great, but there are consequences. Repentance is something between them, their conscience, and their maker. Forgiveness, well if they want to forgive themselves well great, if their victim (or victims family and friends, if the victim is dead) wants to forgive them then fine. But in the end, they bring the consequences on them selves.
@ Steven
ReplyDeleteYou say life is to sacred to be put in the hands of government, but the life that was taken was just as sacred, and the same regard you are showing for the life of a criminal was not shown for the victim. But, you aren't a criminal (as far as I know) and for you it's a matter of "are we any better if we take a life" am I right? So I understand you. I have thought of arguments for either side which are real for me, but I personally feel sometimes capital punishment is necessary.
@ Steven:
ReplyDeleteWhy is life too sacred to be put in the hands of the government? We do it every day, when we trust them to protect us from external threats.
The whole point to our constitution is to provide clear guidelines as to what the government can and cannot do, meaning that it is specifically designed to prevent the kind of abuse you are alluding at.
We, as a part of the "social contract", give up some sovereignty to our government so that they can protect us, and at the same time we have the constitution to protect us from the government abusing their power.
Justin,
ReplyDeletedo you ever get tired?
That is a great point though, the government is obligated to protect us from threats foreign and domestic. I think killers in our country are pretty domestic...
Alejandra: tired of what?
ReplyDeletei enjoy a good discussion, and this is a wonderful one.
Its, Alan
ReplyDeletePersonally, i do not believe in capital punishment. I believe that young adults under the age of 18 should not have to be given life long sentences in jail with no oppurtunity of porale. i mean their just young kids, their actions of when they are young should not affect the rest of their life. Sure if they did terrible things like rape and armed robbery, they should be locked up, But not for the rest of their life. They should have some option of parole if the show good behavior. Beccaria said that capitol punishment should benefit the community. In what way is killing minors benefiting the community. It just causes destress and anger to the families of the the child that was killed (the electric chair kid). I think that their should be some option of parole for kids under 18
Discussions?
ReplyDeleteFor you they are full out debates where you argue and argue to completely dismantle every portion of the opposition's argument.
In this case you singled out poor Steven...
last comment is to Justin by the way...
ReplyDeletealejandra:
ReplyDeletesorry if i sounded harsh earlier... i apologize to everyone... but i didn't mean to....
and i focused on steven's arguments since they most directly countered mine, and I was interested to learn more about his position.
@ sami
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with your arguement about an eye for an eye in the form of young adults. I know it sounds corny but they are still in the process of being molded into the people they are going to turn out to be. If you put them in jail for say 30 years and teach them how proper citizens should behave then you can let them, you should see what happens. I bet that they will not do any more unforgivable crimes. But in the rare cases that they do, then i fully agree with you in killing them. They obviously arent going to change and theirs no reason to try and rehabilitate them. But you should at least give them a second chance to prove themselves. Thats my point
Justin:
ReplyDeleteYah, I know. And actually, you make this assignment very entertaining. I find your arguments very interesting and convincing. Besides, it was sort of like my argument and it brought up other points in favor of that argument...
thanks?
ReplyDeleteOkay. I have a few things I want to say:
ReplyDelete@Jake: I guess we have a similar point of view, but I disagree in that when would-be criminals see former criminals released from prison, that is not a better motivation for them to change. I think they might see that as lenience on the part of the judicial system and need to know that there is the possibility of living for the rest of their life in prison, and that this would act as a stronger deterrent than either. If you saw someone released who murdered someone, and you wanted to murder someone, wouldn't you do it and then think that they would release you?
@Gus: Yes, you do sound a bit radical. 11-year-olds have not fully developed minds, and some haven't even hit puberty yet. They can change in this time, so I think that just because they should receive a slightly different treatment. The death penalty should not be an option at this time, but later when the person fully understands his actions and has had ample opportunity to change. The 11-year-old should instead go to prison for a long, long time and if he truly changes, then he should be re-entered into society.
@Alan: How shouldn't our actions as young kids affect our adult lives? If you don't do well in school, the likelihood is that you won't go to a good college/get a good education, therefore probably not have a good job, etc. etc. Things you do now can and DO affect our adult lives. Haven't you heard of employers checking facebooks and looking at pictures you took years ago and using that to influence their decision? Murder is an even more drastic thing, of course it should have more drastic implications on the rest of your life. But otherwise, yes, kid should go to prison/get parole option IF HE CHANGES.
I firmly believe in capital punishment. However, I do not believe in the death penalty for minors. The death punishment is a necessary tool to discourage violent crimes. In addition, some criminals are simply beyond the point of rehabilitation and just sit in prison potentially even causing more harm within the prison’s concrete walls. I believe that if someone commits a murder, the death penalty should be one of the options available to punish them.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that minors deserve the death penalty because minors do not have fully developed brains and therefore often make poor decisions. They should be given the opportunity to learn from their mistakes and given at least a chance to change. This, however, does not mean they should be let off lightly. They still need to be given a long term in prison to show that there are serious consequences to serious crimes. After their sentence, the should be carefully assessed before being released on parole.
I agree with Justin on his view that punishments should be Draconian in nature. If the punishment is greater than the crime (slightly) then the perpetrator is less likely to make the same mistake. This will also set an example for all others and help to deter crime in society as a whole.
ReplyDeleteLoved this dialogue! very interesting discussion everyone. thanks for taking the blog so seriously.
ReplyDeleteRockenbach
I believe that if you commit a crime that is terrible enough you deserve to have your own life taken by the death penalty. If you raid a school and kill 30 kids unless you have some sort of phsycological problem you deserve to die. The killer took 30 peoples lives for no reason they deserve to die and suffer the consequences. I think there should be a minimum amount of people killed inorder to qualify for the death penalty. Also depending on how brudal the killings were are also a big part of it. I think there should be some type of death penalty for the most brutal horrifying crimes, but it should not be something in use very often.
ReplyDeleteAustin