Bush OKs execution of Army death row prisoner

[Fear_Itself]

[QUOTE=Blaster Master]
You say “how can any term of incarceration be equated with sexual assault”, so perhaps sexual assault is also worthy of a punishment greater than life imprisonment?
[/QUOTE]
If you are talking about expanding the crimes eligible for the death penalty, the Supreme Court says no:
[QUOTE=Supreme Court ]
The court went beyond the question in the case to rule out the death penalty for any individual crime — as opposed to “offenses against the state,” such as treason or espionage — “where the victim’s life was not taken.”

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said there was “a distinction between intentional first-degree murder on the one hand and non-homicide crimes against individual persons,” even such “devastating” crimes as the rape of a child, on the other.

The decision was the third in the last six years to place a categorical limitation on capital punishment. In 2002, the court barred the execution of mentally retarded defendants. In 2005, it ruled that the Constitution bars the death penalty for crimes committed before the age of 18.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Blaster Master]
We, as a society, have agreed upon what an equitable trade is for most violations. For instance, theft (violation of someone’s right to property) is worth a certain amount of time of incarceration.
[/QUOTE]
So equitability is a subjective judgement?

However, the crux of my argument, which you haven’t addressed, is that life is immeasurably more valuable than any summation of any other rights that a person may have. Thus, it is impossible to have any sort of equitable trade of any other rights.

I believe I did. Since equitability is subjective, any valuation of rights is purely a matter of personal opinion. In my opinion, murder does not justify execution. You disagree. I see no argument that would give your position more weight than mine.

However, the incarcerated man can still read a book, write a letter, have a conversation, smile, or any number of other things; his victim can NEVER do those things.

Does his victim regain those rights after the murderer is executed? Those cannot deal out life should not be so quick to deal out death.

[usar_jag]

[QUOTE=Cervaise]
What if somebody murders two people? He can only be killed back once. Do you kill him extra hard?
[/QUOTE]
Multiple death sentences are always served concurrently.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

[QUOTE=Blaster Master]
You’re arguing a strawman. I specifically said my view of justice is a modified version of “eye for an eye” such that it is the same OR a forfeiture of an equitable amount of another right. I even gave a specific example such that the “eye for an eye” punishment for assault would be capital punishment, but I believe a jail sentence can be just as an equitable trade of the convict’s right to freedom verses the physical harm he did to the victim.

So, I have to ask you, what’s YOUR view of justice if it differs from mine? If it doesn’t, what else do you see as an equitable trade for violating the right to life? In this state, IIRC, people can get life imprisonment for a myriad of violent crimes, most of which I would consider to be equitable punishments. Surely murder is an entirely different and more serious crime, no?

If you disagree with my view on justice, what is yours? If we’re not punishing people to achieve a balance, why are we punishing them? Revenge? Rehabilitation?
[/QUOTE]

It’s not a strawman. If having the death penalty seems reasonable because of a moral imperative, then the moral imperative is a a balance you wish to restore.

My view on justice is pretty standard. I believe the penal system should be centered around preventing recidivism, with a primary goal being rehabilitation and a secondary goal being the confinement of those who can’t be rehabilitated.

I don’t believe that moral balancing should enter the equation at all; once committed, a crime cannot be undone, and any attempt to restore something to the victim by punishing the guilty party is silly.

Thus, I’m okay with corporal punishment in certain instances (with the absolute exception of anything which causes lasting or permanent harm, like amputation); it seems to work relatively well in the nations which practice it. I’m not okay with capital punishment, because obviously there’s no rehabilitative interest there.

[DrDeth]

[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
I I believe the penal system should be centered around preventing recidivism, with a primary goal being rehabilitation and a secondary goal being the confinement of those who can’t be rehabilitated. …I’m not okay with capital punishment, because obviously there’s no rehabilitative interest there.
[/QUOTE]

It completely and totally, 100%, prevents recidivism.

[appleciders]

[QUOTE=Qadgop the Mercotan]
In what state of the US does a prisoner have a right to suicide?
[/QUOTE]

Not even in Oregon, where we’ve allowed physician-assisted suicide for over a decade for the terminally ill.

[Lust4Life]

I’ve no time for Bush normally but he’s right on this one.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

[QUOTE=DrDeth]
It completely and totally, 100%, prevents recidivism.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, in much the same way that banning automobile sales prevents auto accidents.

[Blaster_Master]

[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
If you are talking about expanding the crimes eligible for the death penalty, the Supreme Court says no
[/quote]

You missed my point. I stated that I believe murder deserves a punishment that is greater than life imprisonment. Presenting what you believe to be an inequality between punishment and another crime does not, in any way, effect whether or not murder and the death penalty are equal.

As I perceived the argument to be essentially “here’s something else that is worth more than a measurable amount of freedom and we don’t punish it with death, therefore we shouldn’t punish anything with death”. Thus, my point was, maybe that, as a punishment, isn’t equitable, maybe they DO deserve something more than life imprisonment, that’s an individual opinion. Either way, that’s a completely seperate debate about whether there are other crimes that do deserve the death penalty besides murder in a society that has that punishment.

So equitability is a subjective judgement?

No. Even in where you quoted, I specifically said “we, as a society”. We decide what rights are worth more and how much they should be protected as part of the social contract to which we all abide.

I believe I did. Since equitability is subjective, any valuation of rights is purely a matter of personal opinion. In my opinion, murder does not justify execution. You disagree. I see no argument that would give your position more weight than mine.

Besides misrepresenting my point, yet again, you completely side-stepped the crux of my argument. Do you, or do you not, agree that the right to life is the most important right and that it is more valuable than the sumation of all other rights? My justification is simply that without the right to life, all other rights are moot (ie, what good is a right to freedom if you’re dead?). If you disagree with that, please say so.

If you disagree with that and can provide reasoning, fine. I want to discuss that. But if you’re not going to address my point… what’s the point.

Does his victim regain those rights after the murderer is executed? Those cannot deal out life should not be so quick to deal out death.

Does a victim of assault get back his health and have his pain undone by incarcerating the assaulter? You’re absolutely right that a crime cannot be undone. It’s not about trying to “undo” the crime, it’s about balancing it out with an equitable punishment.

[Fear_Itself]

[QUOTE=Blaster Master]
As I perceived the argument to be essentially “here’s something else that is worth more than a measurable amount of freedom and we don’t punish it with death, therefore we shouldn’t punish anything with death”.
[/QUOTE]
You misunderstood again. The argument is, “If equitability is the most important reason in determining punishment, then why doesn’t the state rape the rapist?” I made no argument about inequality, but rather subjective punishements.

Even in where you quoted, I specifically said “we, as a society”. We decide what rights are worth more and how much they should be protected as part of the social contract to which we all abide.

That is the very definition of “subjective”.

Besides misrepresenting my point, yet again, you completely side-stepped the crux of my argument. Do you, or do you not, agree that the right to life is the most important right and that it is more valuable than the sumation of all other rights? My justification is simply that without the right to life, all other rights are moot (ie, what good is a right to freedom if you’re dead?). If you disagree with that, please say so.

I don’t disagree with that. I also don’t see how it creates equitability between murder and execution.

Does a victim of assault get back his health and have his pain undone by incarcerating the assaulter?

I am not the slave to equitability, so it does not have to.

You’re absolutely right that a crime cannot be undone. It’s not about trying to “undo” the crime, it’s about balancing it out with an equitable punishment.

And I am arguing life in prison is equitable for murder.

[Blaster_Master]

[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
It’s not a strawman. If having the death penalty seems reasonable because of a moral imperative, then the moral imperative is a a balance you wish to restore.
[/quote]

Yes, I agree with this statement, and I believe it is the fundamental purpose of law and justice.

My view on justice is pretty standard. I believe the penal system should be centered around preventing recidivism, with a primary goal being rehabilitation and a secondary goal being the confinement of those who can’t be rehabilitated.

I’m not sure how standard that view is or is not, as I can only provide anecdotal evidence. Either way, that is a view that is being addressed in another thread in GD in which I already made a post addressing that point.

I don’t believe that moral balancing should enter the equation at all; once committed, a crime cannot be undone, and any attempt to restore something to the victim by punishing the guilty party is silly.

I do want to point out that balancing is not about restoring something to the victim. No crime can ever be undone, and no victim can ever be returned to the state he was in prior to the crime. It is purely about restoring balance to society. I’ve provided my thought on that point better in the linked thread, I think.

Thus, I’m okay with corporal punishment in certain instances (with the absolute exception of anything which causes lasting or permanent harm, like amputation); it seems to work relatively well in the nations which practice it. I’m not okay with capital punishment, because obviously there’s no rehabilitative interest there.

IOW, our disagreement isn’t specifically over the death penalty, but over a fundamental disagreement on the purpose law and the justice system. Clearly, if you don’t think establishing a balance is even part of the equation, and favor rehabilitation, then the death penalty makes no sense. My view on that is precisely the opposite, and it is one of the premises of my argument that. I’d, instead, encourage you to bring that view to the other thread.

Either way, since it’s a disagreement over a premise, then I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

[VinylTurnip]

[QUOTE=DrDeth]
It completely and totally, 100%, prevents recidivism.
[/QUOTE]

"My esteemed colleague over there says he supports the death penalty because it prevents recidivism. He apparently thinks it’s just fine to prevent a murderer from killing more than once.

Well I say that’s not good enough! I say: why should we allow even the first cidivism? Why should even one American have to die?

They shouldn’t. And that’s why if elected, I will seek legislation requiring universal mandatory abortions. Thank you, and God bless America."

“I’m Vinyl Turnip, and I approve this message!”
(Paid for by Slush Fund for Vinyl Turnip)

[Blaster_Master]

[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
You misunderstood again. The argument is, “If equitability is the most important reason in determining punishment, then why doesn’t the state rape the rapist?” I made no argument about inequality, but rather subjective punishements.
[/quote]

I have addressed this point multiple times in this thread, which is why I missed your point, because I figured I’d put it to bed. I’m talking about equitableness NOT equality. Very few punishments in our justice system are “equal to the crime” but most are equitable.

That is the very definition of “subjective”.

No, the definition is “pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual” according to dictionary.com.

I don’t disagree with that. I also don’t see how it creates equitability between murder and execution.

You know what, I’ve resisted the urge to do it up to this point, but I don’t think I can explain it any simpler than with some mathematical notation.

Let R be a vector of all basic rights. Also, let f(R[sub]i[/sub]) be a valuation function for any specific right R[sub]i[/sub]. For simplicity’s sake, let R be ordered such that R[sub]0[/sub] is the right to life. Let V be a vector of the values of the victim’s rights and C be a vector of the values of the criminal’s rights.

For each i, f(R[sub]i[/sub]) = V[sub]i[/sub] = C[sub]i[/sub] [eq A]. The value of each right for both the criminal and the victim is the same. I can’t imagine there’d be any dispute on this one. Besides, the rest remains true unless the values of the rights of the criminal are somehow greater than the victim.

f(R[sub]0[/sub]) > Σ(i = 1, n, f(R[sub]i[/sub])) [eq. B]. The right to life is more valuable than a summation of all other rights. You don’t disagree with that per the quote.

Hence, equitableness can then be defined such that Σv = Σc where v is a subset of V and c is a subset of C. It’s equitable when the value of the rights of the victim that were violated are equal to the rights that the criminal forfeits. Side point: If Σv > Σc, then it is unbalanced such that the criminal received too little punishment; if Σv < Σc, it is unbalanced such that the criminal received too much.

Let v = V[sub]0[/sub]. Then we need to determine the value of c in the following equation: V[sub]0[/sub] = Σc.

f(R[sub]0[/sub]) = Σc [eq. C]. From [eq. A], substitution.

Let’s assume that c includes all rights in C except C[sub]0[/sub] because this is the maximum punishment that doesn’t include C[sub]0[/sub] and. Thus, Σc = Σ(i = 1, n, f(C[sub]i[/sub])) = Σ(i = 1, n, f(R[sub]i[/sub])) [eq. D]. From [eq. A], substitution.

f(R[sub]0[/sub]) = Σ(i = 1, n, f(R[sub]i[/sub])). Using [eq. D] to substitute into [eq. C].

f(R[sub]0[/sub]) - Σ(i = 1, n, f(R[sub]i[/sub])) = 0. Subtracting the same value from both sides.

This is a contradiction with [eq. B] because the first term is larger than the second and thus the result cannot be 0. Hence, c MUST include C[sub]0[/sub] or it violates the premise of [eq. B], with which you agreed.

I am not the slave to equitability, so it does not have to.

Then I ask again, what is the purpose of law if not to establish equitableness?

And I am arguing life in prison is equitable for murder.

I think I’ve shown that this simply isn’t the case based on the premises I presented and with which you agreed.

[Frank]

[QUOTE=Blaster Master]
… I don’t think I can explain it any simpler than with some mathematical notation.

Let R be a vector of all basic rights. Also, let f(R[sub]i[/sub]) be a valuation function for any specific right R[sub]i[/sub]. For simplicity’s sake, let R be ordered such that R[sub]0[/sub] is the right to life. Let V be a vector of the values of the victim’s rights and C be a vector of the values of the criminal’s rights.

For each i, f(R[sub]i[/sub]) = V[sub]i[/sub] = C[sub]i[/sub] [eq A]. The value of each right for both the criminal and the victim is the same. I can’t imagine there’d be any dispute on this one. Besides, the rest remains true unless the values of the rights of the criminal are somehow greater than the victim.

f(R[sub]0[/sub]) > Σ(i = 1, n, f(R[sub]i[/sub])) [eq. B]. The right to life is more valuable than a summation of all other rights. You don’t disagree with that per the quote.

Hence, equitableness can then be defined such that Σv = Σc where v is a subset of V and c is a subset of C. It’s equitable when the value of the rights of the victim that were violated are equal to the rights that the criminal forfeits. Side point: If Σv > Σc, then it is unbalanced such that the criminal received too little punishment; if Σv < Σc, it is unbalanced such that the criminal received too much.

Let v = V[sub]0[/sub]. Then we need to determine the value of c in the following equation: V[sub]0[/sub] = Σc.

f(R[sub]0[/sub]) = Σc [eq. C]. From [eq. A], substitution.

Let’s assume that c includes all rights in C except C[sub]0[/sub] because this is the maximum punishment that doesn’t include C[sub]0[/sub] and. Thus, Σc = Σ(i = 1, n, f(C[sub]i[/sub])) = Σ(i = 1, n, f(R[sub]i[/sub])) [eq. D]. From [eq. A], substitution.

f(R[sub]0[/sub]) = Σ(i = 1, n, f(R[sub]i[/sub])). Using [eq. D] to substitute into [eq. C].

f(R[sub]0[/sub]) - Σ(i = 1, n, f(R[sub]i[/sub])) = 0. Subtracting the same value from both sides.

This is a contradiction with [eq. B] because the first term is larger than the second and thus the result cannot be 0. Hence, c MUST include C[sub]0[/sub] or it violates the premise of [eq. B], with which you agreed.
[/QUOTE]

You can’t be serious.

[Fear_Itself]

[QUOTE=Blaster Master]
No, the definition is “pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual” according to dictionary.com.
[/QUOTE]
No it isn’t. The definition of subjective is:
Proceeding from or taking place in a person’s mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.

You know what, I’ve resisted the urge to do it up to this point, but I don’t think I can explain it any simpler than with some mathematical notation.

You failed again.

Then I ask again, what is the purpose of law if not to establish equitableness?

To protect the public. Not to make the perpetrator feel bad, or the victim feel good, but to protect the public. Since the murder rate is higher in states with the death penalty, it does not promote that goal.

I think I’ve shown that this simply isn’t the case based on the premises I presented and with which you agreed.

Three strikes. You’re out.