Oooooo, never thought of that. Good point, Jackmanni!
Apart from the use of the label “moral”, that’s quite a nifty fallacy there, and it would work were it not for the difference in nature between the death penalty and imprisonment. The death penalty is applied on such a small scale compared to imprisonment and the available number of criminals that it is “deterrent” (supposedly) in nature, whereas imprisonment is both “deterrent” and “preventive” (since the many locked up criminals do not generally commit crimes during their prison terms).
Consider also that the justice system allows for process after imprisonment. But it’s a little bit harder to remedy a judgment as final as death. Finally, the theory is that criminals in prison are given a chance to reform.
Two entirely different arguments the way I see it, and not at all similar on moral grounds.
**
We can deprive people of basic human rights with due process under the law. The government can seize property, incarcerate individuals, and force them into servitude for their crimes. If all forms of the death penalty are a violation of human rights then are not all punishments similiar violations?
**
He’s also a threat to those employed by the prison system.
I don’t think it is a deterrent either. Of course I don’t see why it matters whether or not it is a deterrent. I don’t think our justice system, or the English one for that matter, has ever been much of a deterrent to crime.
Marc
Deterrent or not, it’s a barbaric practice.
Would torture deter more crime? Probably. But we don’t do it, and for good reason. European countries realized long ago that the death penalty is in the same category, and banned it.
The death penalty degrades our society by making us all murderers.
**
What’s barbaric about it?
**
Why is it in the same category?
Do you also feed degraded because society makes us all kidnappers?
Marc
Exhaustive studies have shown that criminals subjected to the death penalty show an “extremely low” rate of recidivism, compared to alternative punishments. really, all of those arguements opposing the death penaly (on the grounds that it does not significantly affect the crime rate) are so much hoqwash. The point is, someone executed is NEVER again going to take a human life. And that fits the definition of “effective”.
Where “fallacy” comes into play (or is “hypocrisy” a more apt description?) is expressing shock and outrage over the remote possibility of a wrongful execution and demanding an end to the death penalty for that reason, while ignoring wrongful deaths in prison that may involve innocent parties, since they don’t directly involve the government’s hand on the IV apparatus. Why aren’t you demanding that the prison gates be flung open?**
This of course ignores violent crimes (i.e. rape, murder) committed against fellow inmates, guards and other employees, as well as drug running plus scams run against people on the outside. **
And it’s pitiable that Ted Bundy wasn’t given that chance. It diminishes all of us. :rolleyes:
**
What’s barbaric about torture? Or, if you don’t think torture is barbaric, why don’t we torture criminals?
**
Because it’s barbaric.
I consider prison a form of self-defense by society. The death penalty is not necessary for society’s self-defense as long as we have prisons, it’s not fairly applied, it is arguably ineffective, and it results in the death of innocent people. What possible justification can be put up against that?
If by “long ago” you mean “less than 25 years”, I suppose. On September 10, 1977, Hamida Djandoubi was executed in France by guillotine. At least I haven’t heard about any official US-sanctioned beheadings in the last few decades.
I see on preview that you’ve also said:
Starting off small, how about stories such as this? An old article (1990), but still valid: if these criminals had been executed, as they deserved, they wouldn’t have been around to murder again.
Ahhhhh… the good old death penalty. Doncha just love the inherent irony? “You there! Killing is wrong, so now we have to kill you.” And it’s so deliciously…primal.
Truly, it is better that a thousand guilty go free than even one innocent be put to death.
This is another fallacy, an even more evident one than the previous one you gave us. You are saying that the fact that prisons are not a perfect environment, and that some prisoners are at risk from other prisoners, are good arguments in favour of the death penalty. Well, gee, why don’t we put to death all criminals who may kill or torture or rape other prisoners?
Because I have an intellect and I’m not afraid to use it. On the other hand when you dumb down an argument like this I wonder if it’s even worth discussing it anymore.
And that is precisely why there ought to be a law regulating the use of irony. It’s clearly not a tool employed successfulyl by all.
Wait a minute, you seem to be lumping together factors you find convenient and ignoring others.
Yes, the judicial system may seize property, incarcerate individuals, and force them into “servitude”. Prisoners’ right to freedom is suspended (sometimes indefinitely, as in a life sentence) based on process. But many of prisoners’ human rights are essentially intact, such as the right to survive, the right to medical care, and so forth.
I wouldn’t have a problem with your argument if in fact criminals’ human rights vanished after a crime is committed and they are found guilty, but of course it doesn’t work that way. You can’t suspend someone’s right to live–you can only take it away permanently (and along with it most of a person’s rights).
And, of course, the argument behind temporarily suspending some of the rights of guilty parties is based in part on the hypothesis that incarcerations, in conjunction with special programs (which unfortunately are probably not as widely implemented as they ought to be) is intended to reform the offender (not just remove him/her from circulation for a while).
The death penalty is an irrevocable and absolute judgment. If I may paraphrase from the world of science, absolute judgment ought to require absolute knowledge.
**
I didn’t say all rights vanished as soon as someone was convicted. All I said was that certain basic rights could be taken away under the law.
**
Some criminals don’t deserve a chance at reformation. Others won’t be rehabilitated no matter how many chances we give them.
I disagree.
Marc
(Italics mine)
umm, nope, South Africa doesn’t have the DP, we haven’t had it since 1994 - end of apartheid.
I’m wondering how old the data some people use, is. I know the old regime had a horrific execution rate, but the new regime is a lot “better” - if you subscribe to anti-DP stance. Anecdotally, a lot of the people I know seem to think things were a lot better under the old system. Me, I’m not sure, but I am pro-DP.
I’m just going to go right out on a limb here and state for the record that I am completely certain that you would experience a change of heart on this topic if you were to find yourself wrongfully convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death.
I know, it’s wacky…
I’m sure I’d also experience a change of heart if I found myself rightfully convicted and sentenced to death. If such an unlikely event such as that were to occur I would simply escape death row and track down the one armed man who was the true murderer.
It might suprise you to know that I’m only mildly pro-death penalty. I find nothing immoral about the idea of executing someone for murder as I believe that is exactly what some people deserve. However there are valid concerns such as executing innocent people and the affect executions have on those employed by the state who carry it out. I’d be perfectly happy with life without possiblity of parole. And when I say life I mean they don’t leave unless they’re in a pine box.
Marc
I did not say that you said that all rights vanished, I said I would have no problem with your assertions were it the case that a criminal’s human rights vanish at conviction. Some rights, it is agreed, are suspended.
It’s fine to hold this position, but your argument isn’t going to sway anyone until you provide some support for it, particularly for the claim that some criminals do not deserve a chance at reformation. That’s preposterous and quite dogmatic. The modern justice system has been moving further away from the concept of punishment and just retribution while approaching evermore the idea that criminals are dysfunctional creatures and need to be “fixed”. The chance for reform may be considered just another basic human right (or an extension of the right to live).
Very energetically argued. You are free to disagree, but you know very well that around here you need sturdier arguments!
**
I find nothing preposterous or dogmatic about what I said. It might be preposterous and dogmatic if I said “No criminal deserves the chance at reformation.” In fact it would be preposterous and dogmatic to say that every criminal deserves a chance to reform. Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacey certainly didn’t deserve such a chance.
**
Really? I find that rather interesting considering the acceptance of hate crime and three strike laws. It seems to me that we’re taking a “keep them off the street” attitude rather then a “rehabilitate them” stance. If you want to argue that the chance for reform may be considered an extension of the right to life then be my guest. Of course I personally think that the right to life can be removed for certain crimes.
Marc
I lack familiarity with the details of Bundy and Gacey, yet I find it surprising that anyone could pass judgement on them remotely. What if, rather than pure evil, such people acted out of dysfunction? If society is able to arrange it, is not a chance at reform simply an extension of their right to life? You may say that killing such people is utilitarian, and I would not argue with you. But that they deserve to die or they deserve no chance for reform, I do not see the reasoning no matter how vile their actions. As Plato wrote, “do you not think that all the rest of mankind love good things, and hate evil things?”
In fact I believe that the death penalty for criminals is particularly immoral because it robs science of the chance to study human anomalies and the reform process for such extreme cases. Slamming people away for several years or even life is not a very good way to go about encouraging the reform process–it’s very clear that we know very little about reform as yet. Instead of the DP, it would be far more moral to give these condemned people over to science, so that at least they will contribute in some (moral) way to the greater good (by letting us recognize the advance iugnals of another Ted Bundy, allowing us to diagnose such problems years in advance, and even allowing us to cure --reform-- such people).
No, what I said is that the system seems to be moving away from the more barbaric school of criminal justice (i.e. punishment like chopping off a hand for stealing or burning a witch, to be extreme without using the DP) and closer to a reformist goal, where criminals in jail are taught trade skills, provided with education and reading material, exercise, psychological monitoring, etc.
Which is the same as saying that person X is deserving of death. The moral question is: who are you to make such a decision? Leaving aside the extension of the right to life (which I have already argued), a quote from The Lord Of The Rings comes to mind, Gandalf’s response to the assertion that Gollum deserves to die:
**
And in turn I am surprised that you find it surprising. Both Bundy and John Wayne Gacey are rather famous murderers. If you wanted to learn a bit more you could always check them out on the web.
**
Unless that dysfunction destroyed their ability to tell right from wrong it shouldn’t be a strong factor in determining guilt. However a jury may see fit to take that into account when determining punishment.
**
I’m not even sure it is an extension of anyone’s right to life. But as I said it wouldn’t matter if it was since I believe the right to life can be legally and morally removed.
**
This doesn’t even show up on my radar screen. I don’t consider it a factor in determining whether the DP is right or wrong.
**
You’re assuming that everyone deserves a chance at reform. Even without the DP there are people who should be locked up forever with no chance of entering society.
**
If that’s what you meant then perhaps you should have made yourself more clear. Initially you mentioned nothing about witches being burned or hands being chopped off. I contend that the here and now shows that the modern justice system is moving away from rehabilitation. Hate crime laws and three strike laws seem to show that the trend is going towards locking people away for a long time rehabilitation be damned.
**
Just a simple human being like yourself.
Well being as I’m not a mystical being with great powers I think I’ll just stick with making human judgements.
Marc