Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

And their right ends once convicted, so let's ignore the laws governing everyone else.

 Traditio wrote:

whembly wrote:What about the flip side? The rights of the accused?

I fully admit the rights of the accused. The accused has a right to receive some kind of appropriate process to determine whether he's most likely innocent or guilty. If the great probability is that he is guilty, he has the right to receive the punishment which is appropriate for the crime for which he is accused (of which death is one possible punishment). Otherwise, he has a right to be set free.

Does he not also have the right to be set free if at a later date he is determined to be innocent? That is kinda hard to do once they've been burned to death/gassed/whatever.

 d-usa wrote:
And their right ends once convicted, so let's ignore the laws governing everyone else.

No, no. They continue to have rights once convicted. They have a right to receive their just punishment.

 Traditio wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
And their right ends once convicted, so let's ignore the laws governing everyone else.

No, no. They continue to have rights once convicted. They have a right to receive their just punishment.

Is the warden allowed to rape them first?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: to make it more relevant: is the warden allowded to smoke crack in his office prior to executing them?

d-usa wrote:Is the warden allowed to rape them first?

No. Rape doesn't constitute a just punishment.

Edit: to make it more relevant: is the warden allowded to smoke crack in his office prior to executing them?

It's not permissible for him to smoke crack regardless.

I don't think it's relevant to the justice of the subsequent execution, though. The fact that a warden smokes crack prior to killing a convicted criminal doesn't render the execution unjust. The convict had a right to die, and the warden had the authority to give the convict that which he was owed (i.e., death).

 Traditio wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
And their right ends once convicted, so let's ignore the laws governing everyone else.

No, no. They continue to have rights once convicted. They have a right to receive their just punishment.

2^20edgy4^40me

 Traditio wrote:

whembly wrote:What about the flip side? The rights of the accused?

I fully admit the rights of the accused. The accused has a right to receive some kind of appropriate process to determine whether he's most likely innocent or guilty. If the great probability is that he is guilty, he has the right to receive the punishment which is appropriate for the crime for which he is accused (of which death is one possible punishment). Otherwise, he has a right to be set free.

Here's my problem with the death penalty in principle.

Humans are imperfect... as such, mistakes & real malfeasance *do* happen.

Death is final... there's no 'oops, my bad... can we get a mulligan?'.

So empowering the State to put someone to death via an imperfect system should make you think twice about supporting the death penalty as punishment.

Just look at the Netflix's Making a Murderer doc... I'll even concede that Steve (and possibly even Brendan) is guilty as hell. But the actions by the authorities and the court to put these two men in prison was shameful.

Furthermore, the entire justice system is whacked... but, that's a different topic.

If you read the actual report, you might know that it has nothing at all to say about the death penalty itself, and even acknowledges that the man sentenced to die was successfully executed. The report only focuses on the failures of the state to follow the law that was passed by the state.

The person being affected by the failures to follow the law is actually completely irrelevant. The person with the needle in the arm has nothing to do with any of this actually, it doesn't matter who it is, what they were convicted of, or if they are guilty or innocent. The case is 100% about the State of Oklahoma not following the laws and attempting to cover up the violations of the law.

 d-usa wrote:
If you read the actual report, you might know that it has nothing at all to say about the death penalty itself, and even acknowledges that the man sentence to die was successfully excexuted. The report only focuses on the failures of the state to follow the law that was passed by the state.

The person being affected by the failures to follow the law is actually completely irrelevant. The person with the needle in the arm has nothing to do with any of this actually, it doesn't matter who it is, what they were convicted of, or if they are guilty or innocent. The case is 100% about the State of Oklahoma not following the laws and attempting to cover up the violations of the law.

And my question is simply this:

Why on earth do you care?

Again, Clinton email scandal?

 Traditio wrote:
I fully admit the rights of the accused. The accused has a right to receive some kind of appropriate process to determine whether he's most likely innocent or guilty. If the great probability is that he is guilty, he has the right to receive the punishment which is appropriate for the crime for which he is accused (of which death and torture are possible punishment). Otherwise, he has a right to be set free.

And, again, would you consistently apply this policy of "probably guilty is good enough to execute them"? If you were the "probably guilty" person would you willingly accept your execution so that you don't disrupt the system of executing people you believe to be guilty, even though you know beyond any doubt that you are innocent of the crime you are being executed for? What if it was your wife and children being executed for crimes they didn't commit? Would you be content to say "I love you, but you have to die so that the guilty are also punished" and happily watch their executions, or would you suddenly discover the injustice of executing innocent people?

The answer is in the text you quoted.

Because the guy being excecuted has nothing to do with any of this, and the state is expected to follow the law.

What has the Clinton email got to do with an Execution report?

Unless she's also responsible for the cruel treatment of botched executions?

The whole "I don't care if the state breaks the law, burn people alive, it's okay that innocent people die because statistics, and why aren't people caring about Hillaries emails" has to be the single worst argument of 2016 so far. That argument deserves the needle, but unless it was posted in Texas it will be spared due to the intelligence of the argument.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
What has the Clinton email got to do with an Execution report?

Unless she's also responsible for the cruel treatment of botched executions?

If you're interested in Oklahoma in following the explicit laws when administering an execution... then any defense of HRC's handling of classified emails is mooted, as by the very nature of having that homebrew personal email server, she has broken several federal laws.

Peregrine wrote:And, again, would you consistently apply this policy of "probably guilty is good enough to execute them"? If you were the "probably guilty" person would you willingly accept your execution so that you don't disrupt the system of executing people you believe to be guilty, even though you know beyond any doubt that you are innocent of the crime you are being executed for? What if it was your wife and children being executed for crimes they didn't commit? Would you be content to say "I love you, but you have to die so that the guilty are also punished" and happily watch their executions, or would you suddenly discover the injustice of executing innocent people?

The appropriate thing to do in such cases is to recognize that the fact that a mistake has been made does not render the law as a whole a bad one.

The appropriate thing to do in such a case is to accept the fact that it is better that you die by mistake than that the victims of many, many more guilty people go unavenged.

The law is made for what happens for the most part, not for the exceptions.

Consider Socrates in the Crito.

The appropriate thing to do is to resign oneself to one's fate and accept it as an occasion for the practice of virtue, especially the virtue of courage/patience. And besides, such a person is likely guilty of a whole host of things which may not even be crimes. How wonderful is it to submit oneself justly even to punishments which are not justly due (namely, for the crime for which one has not committed)? Even such punishments can be expiatory and good for the falsely accused if only they embrace them in a spirit of courage, patience, humility, etc.

And besides, the accidental death of an innocent person, if later discovered, does not prevent the State from subsequently executing the actual guilty person later.

Also, aren't you in favor of legal abortion, Peregrine?

Far better is it for a man's innocent wife to be killed (by mistake) in the hallowed name of justice than...

...Well. I'm sure you know where I'm going with this.

 Traditio wrote:
The appropriate thing to do in such cases is to recognize that the fact that a mistake has been made does not render the law as a whole a bad one.

It does when the mistake happens because the law allows it, and an alternative law that would not permit the mistake to happen was rejected.

The appropriate thing to do is to resign oneself to one's fate and accept it as an occasion for the practice of virtue, especially the virtue of courage/patience. And besides, such a person is likely guilty of a whole host of things which may not even be crimes. How wonderful is it to submit oneself justly even to punishments which are not justly due (namely, for the crime for which one has not committed)? Even such punishments can be expiatory and good for the falsely accused if only they embrace them in a spirit of courage, patience, humility, etc.

Well, I admit, at least you're consistent about it. You're a hopeless sociopath if you would really accept the death of your wife and children and consider it an "occasion for the practice of virtue", but at least you're consistent. Or at least you're consistent in your arguments. I suspect that, like everyone else, you would suddenly change your mind if you had to deal with this situation in the real world instead of as a theoretical question in a forum argument.

Also, aren't you in favor of legal abortion, Peregrine?

Yes, but that is not relevant here. There is a massive difference between killing a blob of cells with no functioning nervous system (and therefore none of the things that make us "human") and killing a fully-developed person that has all of those qualities.

 Traditio wrote:

whembly wrote:What about the flip side? The rights of the accused?

I fully admit the rights of the accused. The accused has a right to receive some kind of appropriate process to determine whether he's most likely innocent or guilty. If the great probability is that he is guilty, he has the right to receive the punishment which is appropriate for the crime for which he is accused (of which death and torture are possible punishment). Otherwise, he has a right to be set free.

Then what is the punishment appropriate for the crime?

Kilkrazy wrote:Then what is the punishment appropriate for the crime?

Depends on the crime. As Aristotle tells us, justice requires arithmetical proportion between offense and punishment. It is a "making whole." It "repairs" the damage done by the offense.

This must not be understood in any consequentialist or utilitarian manner. Rather, the damage done is a damage to the order of justice. The scales of Lady Justice have been tipped out of balance. Punishment puts them back in balance, so to speak.

For theft, restitution and imprisonment (or some other suitable penalty) are fine.

For a battery, restitution and corporal punishment (or imprisonment, or some other suitable penalty) is fine.

For murder? Well, you're the one talking about the "Western Christian ethics." I quote:

“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed" (Genesis 9:6).

God bless our theocracy!

 d-usa wrote:
God bless our theocracy!

I only offer the verse for KK's benefit.

The same conclusion follows from a simple consideration of the proportion between murder and the death penalty.

I'm about as red-blooded conservative as it gets on Dakka... having said that:

I still say that the question we should be asking ought not to be whether people who commit heinous crimes *deserves* to be executed, but it’s whether we *trust* the government to be 100% accurate and effectively administer the execution.

As a state, we cannot tolerate the executions of innocent people. Because to do so... such actions strike at the very legitimacy of government and our way of life.

 Traditio wrote:
Depends on the crime. As Aristotle tells us, justice requires arithmetical proportion between offense and punishment. It is a "making whole." It "repairs" the damage done by the offense.

And you already reject your own argument because you're arguing for punishments that are not equivalent. If what matters is restoring the original balance then the punishment must be the same. Theft must be punished with equal financial payments made to the victim, prison time would be inappropriate because it does not restore this balance. In fact, by your own argument you couldn't even apply penalties at all! The only punishment for theft would be giving the stolen property back, as applying any punitive fines would push the scales of justice back out of balance again.

PS: you can reject consequentialism if you like, but it makes about as much sense as rejecting the idea that 1+1=2.

whembly wrote:I still say that the question we should be asking ought not to be whether people who commit heinous crimes *deserves* to be executed, but it’s whether we *trust* the government to be 100% accurate and effectively administer the execution.

As a state, we cannot tolerate the executions of innocent people. Because to do so... such actions strike at the very legitimacy of government and our way of life.

I simply don't think that the bar needs to be set that high. [Not even Moses or St. Paul required this.]

The bar should be as follows: the State should take all reasonable precautions to ensure that they have the right guy.

If an innocent person dies, that doesn't "strike at the very legitimacy of government and our way of life." It would if the innocent person were intentionally killed (thus does the government funding of abortion "strike at the very legitimacy," etc.), but not if an occasional innocent person dies accidentally, all reasonable precautions otherwise being taken (abdicating the death penalty wholesale is not, pace Peregrine, a reasonable precaution).

An innocent person dies? Oh well. It's very sad, but ultimately, it was better that he die and we subsequently discover the truth (and so find and kill the right guy) rather than for the victims of heinous crimes to go unavenged.

You and others want to keep focusing on the possibility of innocent people dying.

I'd rather that you turn your attention to the victims of the capital crimes and the gravity of these offenses.

Life imprisonment isn't enough.

I disagree.

Peregrine wrote:And you already reject your own argument because you're arguing for punishments that are not equivalent. If what matters is restoring the original balance then the punishment must be the same. Theft must be punished with equal financial payments made to the victim, prison time would be inappropriate because it does not restore this balance.

False. You are failing to consider the crime of theft holistically.

In addition to the loss of property on the part of the victim, the thief also:

1. Victimizes the victim
2. Violates the laws of the State
3. Commits an act of injustice.

Yes, the victim of thievery must receive restitution for what he lost. But that's not the whole "impact" of the crime. The thief has committed a crime against individual and State for which he must be punished. He must be put in his place, so to speak.

PS: you can reject consequentialism if you like, but it makes about as much sense as rejecting the idea that 1+1=2.

Do you have an argument for this?

 Traditio wrote:
An innocent person dies? Oh well. It's very sad, but ultimately, it was better that he die and we subsequently discover the truth (and so find and kill the right guy) rather than for the victims of heinous crimes to go unavenged.

IOW, torture people to death to satisfy the bloodthirsty mob. What's next, having a public execution process where the guilty (and any unfortunate innocents who happen to be wrongfully convicted) are slowly chopped apart and the bloody chunks of flesh are thrown to the mob? Ooh, maybe we could have a reality TV show where people compete to find the most painful tortures to inflict upon the supposedly-guilty? Or, you know, you're a Christian, maybe you'd appreciate a little revenge on behalf of your religion's martyrs and go for the opportunity to throw the supposedly-guilty to the lions?

Thankfully the real world is generally run by people whose highest priority in life isn't "make sure the people I think are guilty are sufficiently tortured to death, no matter how many innocents I have to kill in the process".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Traditio wrote:
False. You are failing to consider the crime of theft holistically.

I see. So we're no longer talking about a literal balancing of the scales, we're considering "victims" that are mere concepts rather than actual people. This is sure a convenient way to justify whatever harsh punishment you like. After all, it's not like "justice" as a concept has any physical loss to point to, so you can just assume that the only possible balance for the crime against "justice" is being tortured to death.

He must be put in his place, so to speak.

Well, that's certainly in line with your other beliefs.

Do you have an argument for this?

Besides the obvious one that "I don't care about the consequences of my actions, this rule says I'm right" is the kind of incredibly superficial and empathy-lacking ethical argument that only sociopaths and children make?

 Traditio wrote:

whembly wrote:I still say that the question we should be asking ought not to be whether people who commit heinous crimes *deserves* to be executed, but it’s whether we *trust* the government to be 100% accurate and effectively administer the execution.

As a state, we cannot tolerate the executions of innocent people. Because to do so... such actions strike at the very legitimacy of government and our way of life.

I simply don't think that the bar needs to be set that high. [Not even Moses or St. Paul required this.]

The bar should be as follows: the State should take all reasonable precautions to ensure that they have the right guy.

If an innocent person dies, that doesn't "strike at the very legitimacy of government and our way of life." It would if the innocent person were intentionally killed (thus does the government funding of abortion "strike at the very legitimacy," etc.), but not if an occasional innocent person dies accidentally, all reasonable precautions otherwise being taken (abdicating the death penalty wholesale is not, pace Peregrine, a reasonable precaution).

An innocent person dies? Oh well. It's very sad, but ultimately, it was better that he die and we subsequently discover the truth (and so find and kill the right guy) rather than for the victims of heinous crimes to go unavenged.

You and others want to keep focusing on the possibility of innocent people dying.

I'd rather that you turn your attention to the victims of the capital crimes and the gravity of these offenses.

Life imprisonment isn't enough.

I'm going to agree and disagree with you.

I agree that our abortion laws is shameful and does "strike at the very legitimacy" of our society. But, that's moving the goal-post in this thread and isn't what we're discussing here.

We're talking about the state administering the death penalty on the convicted.

I'm going to disagree with you that "Life imprisonment isn't enough". If it's truly life w/o parole... man, that's horrible. We can quibble over how they're treated in prison but, the fact remains, they're not free. Freedom is a precious thing and the fact that being confined in a box for the rest of their lives... knowing that they'll NEVER be released, is some serious mindfeth. It may not act as a deterrance, but we can take some solace that these peoples are quarantined from society (which should be any prison's purpose).

Life imprisonment is horrible enough and there are documented case where the victim's family plead the courts to NOT recommend the death penalty.


EDIT: can't spell today...

Time to get back to real justice, let society get their just revenge!

*trigger warning: lynching*

Okay, very uncomfortable now. Was that really necessary, d-usa?

 curran12 wrote:
Okay, very uncomfortable now. Was that really necessary, d-usa?

Honestly, probably not.

But it's a good example of the mindset that "justice" does not have to follow any laws.

I will spoiler it though.