If you are talking about expanding the crimes eligible for the death penalty, the Supreme Court says no:
So equitability is a subjective judgement?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
That is the very definition of “subjective”.
I don’t disagree with that. I also don’t see how it creates equitability between murder and execution.
I am not the slave to equitability, so it does not have to.
And I am arguing life in prison is equitable for murder.
Yes, I agree with this statement, and I believe it is the fundamental purpose of law and justice.
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 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.
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.
"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)
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.
No, the definition is “pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual” according to dictionary.com.
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.
Then I ask again, what is the purpose of law if not to establish equitableness?
I think I’ve shown that this simply isn’t the case based on the premises I presented and with which you agreed.
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 failed again.
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.