Of course, if Ted Bundy had been given the death penalty in Colorado, he wouldn’t have escaped from prison, gone to Florida, killed five more people (the last one a 14 year old girl who suffocated in the mud while Bundy was raping her) and nearly killed two others. Isn’t this a high price to pay for NOT killing a person who obviously couldn’t stop killing?
Would anyone who opposes the death penalty be willing to let a convicted killer stay in their house 24/7 and guarentee they won’t kill again? I made that offer to several people before Timothy McVeigh was executed, and nobody too me up on it. If you are so damn sure these people can be rehibilitated, why don’t you help them to do it?
Sorry, but you are once again failing to address the point. Merely shouting “Fallacy!” doesn’t cut it.
To reiterate: The possibility that at some point an innocent person might be put to death is a major focus of anti-death penalty advocates. Yet there is no comparable outcry over the fact that, in our imperfect criminal justice system, innocents may well be sentenced to prison where they are subject to a heightened risk of premature death from violence or disease. They’d be just as dead as if they were executed, yet you seem to feel that only wrongful death due to execution is unconscionable. How bizarre.
And of course, once the death penalty is overturned, imprisoned killers have less reason to forego murdering other inmates or prison employees - once you’re in for life without parole, there’s not that much more they can do to you.**
Wasn’t this a line from a ZZ Top song? So use it. Address the issue.**
Marc, what I see you doing is repeating your assertions without supporting them. I can’t argue that your opinion is wrong because you’re entitled to it, of course. But your opinion is not going to carry the argument. All I can say is that I respect your opinions but I believe I have given valid objections to a number of your claims. I have given you arguments against the DP that in many cases you dismiss with one- or two-liner question-begging or opining. As for Bundy and company, I do know that they are rather gruesome serial killers. I am not familiar with the details and not particularly interested in them, since a serial killer is pretty much a self-explanatory label (plus, being in another part of the world I receive much less emphasis on Bundy and Co. than you do).
Jackmannii, well, where does one start? Let’s review what you have posted so far in chronological order:
The False Analogy:
In addition to being a rather contorted argument, this is essentially saying that, since A and B share some similarities they are alike in all or most respects. In other words it’s rubbish and the hallmark of a bad argument. The main objections here, that I already provided, are A) the differences in nature between “deterrent” and “preventive” measures, and B) the chance of further process (error-correction) after conviction. Another argument I provided is the scale of things: the DP is applied on too small a scale to truly have an impact on crime, whereas a sizeable portion of Americans who have committed crimes are in jail and therefore not harrying the public. You provided a clearly false analogy of situations and reasoning. I suspect you did this on purpose, but why exactly? Where is this line of reasoning going to take you?
The Either-Or Fallacy:
This one was so silly that I didn’t even bother addressing it, suspecting it to be a joke, but I see you insist that I address it. The priceless conclusion above follows the arguments quoted just before it, and is a brilliant example of the either-or fallacy, which is when you tell us that only two alternatives exist when in fact there are more than two. You address the “moral” and the “immoral” possibilities–assigning them incorrect values and garbling your arguments further, by the way–without considering the possibility of a more efficient justice system or other ameliorative options.
A Lot of Problems:
There’s quite a few fallacies in here, I list them in no particular order of importance: who says anyone ignores wrongful deaths in prisons? On the topic of wrongful, who says that people who get the DP do not get it in part for various political reasons and lobbying (such as poorly-supported pro-DP fervor) as opposed to, strictly speaking, justice? Thirdly, mistakes do happen, and the judgment meted is not always absolutely right: with something as final as taking away a person’s life, and something as representative as a nations’ justice system, even one mistake is one too many and precisely the sort of thing I would not want on my conscience. Fourth, what is this stuff about hypocrisy and expressing shock and outrage about “remote possibilities” of wrongful executions? Why, it appears to be mischaracterization of the argument and of the persons who oppose your view. More objections than simply the downplayed chance of wrongful executions stand in the path of the DP, and quite a few of them have been mentioned in this thread. Fifth: as mentioned earlier, the chance of wrongful execution is, morally speaking, abhorrent; the predictable argument against this is to claim that occasionally killing the wrong man by error is morally OK, but it isn’t–it may be perceived as utilitarian in the general picture, but killing the wrong man can never in itself be a morally good act (so the question about the end justifying the means comes up). In addition to these problems we have a continuation of the either-or fallacy and the false analogy we discussed earlier.
Sundry:
Now, with arguments behind you like these, which appear to deserve the label 'flimsy", you posted the following when I objected to your reasoning:
No shouting here, Jack, simply letting you know that the arguments you are relying on are a pile of manure, at least as you have presented them. You can’t argue any sort of good point with so many fallacies, and I find it bizarre that you have inserted so many into your argument.
You then object with, as you say, repetition, and by no means anything approaching a comprehensive argument in favour of the death penalty:
What’s bizarre is why you would think that the above objection invalidates anti-death penalty arguments (simply because there is something wrong with the prison system–which I think everyone acknowledges–does not necessarily say anything about what is wrong or right with the DP) (In fact you could use this application of technique to argue that hospitals ought to be shut down, since you run the risk of catching someone else’s bugs in there). It is also bizarre that you imply that anti-DP arguments treat only wrongful death due to execution as seriously unconscionable. Not so, and a clear example of why wrong assumptions are not a good idea; the anti-DP crowd are simply focusing on one problem as opposed to all problems.
The justice system is not condemning a man to death when he gets sent to prison, but, unfortunately, accidents outside the control or knowledge of the justice system may happen (an episode of sloppy prison security, for instance). At any rate, prisoners in jail are supposed to be kept under control and if one of them is hurt by another prisoner it is a failing of the system, certainly, and he is provided medical and other care, at least in theory. I do find it completely unconscionable that prisoners may be subjected to abuse from other prisoners. But I don’t see how that has anything to do with the death penalty, unless maybe you are suggesting the death penalty for ALL violent criminals in order to make the prisons safer for inmates–which would be a thoroughly illogical way to go about achieving such a goal (one would instead address issues with the internal security of prisons).
More Problems With the Argument:
Firstly, the above statement assumes that the death penalty works as a deterrent, a claim for which no reliable evidence has been presented thus far. Secondly, there is more they can do to you! A month in solitary confinement, for example, will hardly be welcomed by any. Loss of privileges like exercise, reading material, counselling, etc., also may be applied, and to a man whose life consists of four walls these privileges are very valuable indeed.
You can’t banish the problems of the death penalty by focusing on the problems of the prison system. Both have problems, but, as the woefully overused saying goes, two wrongs do not make a right. Obviously this is a very thorny topic, but I don’t see a good reason for dumbing down the discussion deliberately through the insertion of fallacious arguments.
Sorry Abe, I just don’t view all of your arguements as valid reasons to end the death penalty.
It robs science of the opportunity to study human anomalies.
The main role of the justice system is to protect individuals or society not to study abberent humans. Whether or not psychologist wish to study these people should have no bearing on any punishment the state sees fit for the individual criminal. Furthermore I question your belief that the DP robs scientist of the opportunity to study abberent behavior. Since it usually takes years to get around to an execution there is plenty of time to study such individuals. Furthermore most people on death row aren’t your Ted Bundys or John Wayne Gaceys. I don’t have a cite on hand but I believe the majority of people on death row murdered someone during a robbery of some sort.
Maybe the criminals aren’t evil but are dysfunctional.
The fact that someone is dysfunctional does not automatically absolve them of responsibility for their actions. Unless they are or were incapable of telling right from wrong they are guilty and should be punished. Of course I’ll leave it to a jury to decide whether or not a dysfunction can be a mitigating circumstance on a case by case basis.
The chance to reform is an extension of the right to life.
I haven’t really made a decision about this but for now I’ll give it to you. However as I see it is perfectly moral to remove someone’s right to life under certain circumstances. In such cases the chance to reform is also removed. At any rate there are criminals out there who will never be reformed. You may think that dogmatic but it is the truth.
Many of your reasons for not liking the death penalty seem just as much opinion as mine.
They are criticisms of the death penalty that still go largely unchallenged. And I have posted rather more than the three you quote! But to run by them quickly:
Actually this was a statement concerning putting condemned criminals to good use as opposed to killing them (killing is definitely immoral, but devoting their existence to science instead is likely to show measurable results without necessarily stooping to murder). And the main role of the justice system is to protect society by a number of means, *including *putting to good use the information obtainded by studying aberrant humans (which then yields greater detail about modi operandi et vivendi, as well as advance warning for other cases, etc.). Yes, some inmates of Death Row are studied before their execution, and that’s good–the more we learn about what makes people turn into violent murderers the better–but beyond studying them, my suggestion is to put these criminals at the service of science. You don’t kill them that way (avoiding the responsibility of murder) and get to extract useful information from them too. And, in the event that the wrong person was convicted, the process may be corrected.
And we know that courts, in addition to the entire justice system, are fallible and possibly not worthy of such a great responsibility. Again, killing people by error does not absolve a society (not just its courts) of responsibility. My reference to Plato was used to communicate that the concept of evil is one that relies on subjective interpretations: few people do evil knowing it to be evil because that is simply not the way humans work. A dysfunction may include assigning excessive importance to self-interests and not enough importance to the value of other human life, leading to confusion in certain situations, e.g. a rapist experiences the urge to rape when certain circumstances are fulfilled and the urge is triggered. Mentally retarded persons, minors, or even functioning adults (!) may not be aware of such factors–yet they may be slapped with the death penalty anyway (the US executes both minors and mentally retarded people).
Again, more of an example, but thanks for granting it. It is possible that some people are beyond reform (although I’ll let science tell me that rather than dogma or courts), but until that is known in each case, we can only speculate.
[quote]
Many of your reasons for not liking the death penalty seem just as much opinion as mine.
[QUOTE]
No I think that’s where you’re wrong. Among the arguments I have provided against the DP in this thread are the following:
The DP is more about revenge fantasies and public satisfaction than justice or reform. It’s a public service, and it has most of the arguments of the modern world against it.
The DP results from the drive for revenge, which is one of the automatic feelings (response drive) of an individual or community that has been threatened or wronged.
Once the DP is carried out, there is no chance for error-correction; innocents may be killed by mistake or even design in this manner.
The DP is barbaric. In addition, as FriendRob pointed out, the concept is the same as torture and unnecessary. As he goes on to say, the DP is not necessary for society’s defence as long as we have prisons; it is unfairly applied and results in the death of innocent people.
It doesn’t do any good, i.e. it has not been demonstrated to be deterrent; see the discussion between deterrent and preventive nature.
And so forth (see also my posts to Jackmannii). A few of these are indeed partly my opinions but they are either self-evident or reasonably supported as far as I can see. There are plenty more arguments against the death penalty. An interesting read is this article from TIME I just stumbled upon:
There is little question so far that the death penalty is barbaric and harmful, and I wonder if opining to the contrary is going to do any good. The real question seems to be: is the death penalty strictly necessary, or can a society do without? The answers, as far as I can see from the examples provided by developed democracies other than the US and the modern world in general, are: no, it is not necessary, and yes, a society may do very well without it.
We’re simply coming from two different sides of this issue. I don’t see why killing is definitely immoral.
**
As I said earlier if psychologist wish to study inmates on death row they are free to do so. It typically takes years to execute someone which should gives people plenty of time to find out what makes these people tick.
**
But their worthy enough to seize someone’s assets? Worthy enough to determine whether a man is guilty or not? Worthy enough to sentence them to life in prison?
**
I’ll go along with that.
**
If that’s true then I suppose few people do good knowing it to be good. The concept of good is one that relies on subjective interpretations as well. If you want to believe most people in prison or death row were simply not aware that what the did was wrong then be my guest. I don’t happen to share that belief.
**
Do you assign any blame to criminals for their actions?
**
That’s what we have the jury for. They examine the evidence and they make the decision.
**
I’ll certainly grant you that the DP isn’t about reform. However I do think many people feel that some cases justice is best served by the DP. And the fact that most of the modern world is against doesn’t really matter.
**
This is the only arguement I’ve seen you make that I thought valid.
**
I don’t think the DP is barbaric.
**
This isn’t really an issue. Prisons aren’t a deterrent either but I don’t hear anyone talking about getting rid of prisons.
**
There’s millions of Americans who disagree. So it must be some questions don’t you think?
**
I’m not all that psyched about the DP. I’d be perfectly happy if we simply had life with no possiblity of parole. That means once sentenced you’d be in prison until you left in a pine box.
I have tried, Marc, and obviously failed to engage you in debate. I object to your style of discussion, if it may be called a style of discussion at all. Tired lines from Monty Python’s Flying Circus spring to mind.
Anyone can take a few words, in or out of context, and slap down a few contradictory one-liners and/or subjective platitudes so manipulated as to appear relevant on first sight. It takes rather more, however, to build an argument; I’ll be here whenever you feel like trying. I am sick of your inane approach to this discussion, and this is the last time I will bother to treat your smug one-liners on this topic seriously.
My goodness, Jackmannii’s false analogy and other fallacies were more relevant and intelligent than this comment, which is particularly foolish coming as it does on the heels of the discussion so far (which addressed this point rather better than your reductio ad absurdum). Prison is a deterrent and a preventive measure. We know imprisonment works, at least part of the time (and it’s applied on such a large scale that it would be astounding if it didn’t work).
The above empty assertion comes after a lengthy thread of arguments to the contrary. Who cares what you think if bland opinion is all you are prepared to give? If you can’t argue the point then go offer your unsupported opinions somewhere where opinion counts as much as you seem to think it does.
That is not what the line I quoted or my argument mean at all. Plato was trying to explain that people avoid doing evil and seek to do good when they can and according to their perceptions. This because, we know, man is a social animal, etc., etc., and has built up certain (hardwired and non) social imperatives along with the pursuit of self-interests. A person who cannot tell good from evil is thoroughly “broken”; but I contend that in other cases, the line between evil and not evil is blurred, perhaps temporarily, for the criminal (isn’t that also the reasoning behind a crime of passion?). That is what is meant by the use of “do you not think that all the rest of mankind love good things, and hate evil things?”
Of course. I also realize that in many cases the scapegoat of “evilness” is nothing but rhetorical rubbish, and the criminal suffers from more serious problems than is realized in the rather limited scope of criminal trials. Do you assign blame to criminals for actions they are unable to prevent?
No, because evidently those millions of Americans (and others) are unable to mount a decent argument in support of this barbaric practice and their noise is therefore nothing but uninformed muttering. For example, I see you disagreeing quite a bit, but you contribute very few valid questions or objections to the argument-- you seem happy with reductionist one-liner static noise for the most part. And such thinking as yours, as from the millions of Americans and others who disagree with little or no reasoning, is supposed to be taken seriously?
I’m frustrated. Not because your shrewd, concise, and cutting insights of opinion have wrecked my anti-DP position, but because having this “discussion” with you has been both useless and insulting. Anytime you really want to address the issues, I’ll be glad to read your comprehensive reply to my posts and to the linked article. Until then I conclude I am wasting my limited time preparing arguments that you obviously seem unable to consider in their entirety, limiting yourself to largely irrelevant, often inapplicable, and intellectually bankrupt capsule comments apparently designed to over-simplify the argument for your personal satisfaction.
I gave what I thought were some valid counterpoints which you never addressed. The only valid arguement you’ve had against the DP is that someone innocent might get executed. You think you were frustrated? You didn’t even say why you thought that killing was always immoral. Sure, you said it was barbaric like that’s suppose to be a good reason.
I’d apologize for you feeling insulted but looking back I see no reason to do so. Any perceived insult is a figment of your imagination.
if you were to read this thread with the topic in mind and a willingness to engage in debate, I think you would find yourself posting a few more “oops my bad” type messages.
The DP is barbaric because the modern world, with the exception of a few countries like the US, Iraq, and China, puts great value on human life and human rights as far as a person’s life is concerned (yes, a country like the US does so generally more than a country like China, but all civilized places of the world respect human life). It is universally accepted that killing is an immoral act, even in the US, China, Iraq and other countries that have the death penalty (cf moral vs utilitarian before you provide the predictable argument). Killing someone takes away everything they ever had or ever will have. It is the ultimate denial of a person’s rights to life and freedom. If you want to argue that killing is not immoral, or if you want to argue that the DP is not immoral be my guest. This matter and others have been addressed above and you will no doubt find plenty of material to sink your teeth into should you wish to move beyond your one-liner “counterpoint” technique, which provides next to nothing to this argument.
I’m doing the best I can. I’m sorry if I can’t meet your standards.
**
Other then the death penalty can you provide me with evidence that the people of the United States don’t put a high value on human life? I really don’t see why respecting human life and supporting the death penalty is mutually exclusive.
**
It is not universally accepted that killing a human being is always an immoral act. Certainly millions of people in the mid-east didn’t think the hijackers of 9/11 were immoral, it certainly wouldn’t be an immoral act to kill someone in self-defense, and millions in the United States support the state sanctioned execution of murderers. Based on this how can you conclude that killing another human being is universally accepted as immoral?
**
I do agree with your definition of what killing is. Typically in the United States we only execute people who are guilty of murder. Unlike your examples of China and Iraq who execute people for many different crimes.
Marc
Well, I feel bad about blasting a few of those comments back there, sorry, however to be told that I have only one or two valid points by a person who seems reluctant to debate at all was a little infuriating.
That came out garbled. I meant to say that all countries place value on human life, and even countries that have the DP, such as the US, place great value on human life. It was a premise to suggest that killing is fundamentally immoral. I do however think that respecting human life and supporting the DP are mutually exclusive. If not for any of the other arguments, for the simple fact that mistakes do happen, and death is one mistake you cannot repair. A responsible and morally aware member of a community that truly values human life would not, I imagine, want to share the responsibility of a wrongful DP (whether the practice is utilitarian or not, and to my knowledge there is no evidence to suggest that it is).
Not such a big deal. If I think the moon is made of cheese does that make a difference to the composition of the moon, or does that say something about my perception, intelligence, and knowledge? Sorry for the extreme metaphor, but the bandwagon fallacy (addressed earlier) is one I cannot stand. Also, I am talking about an informed moral position here, not asking for the uninformed opinions of the unwashed masses (of any nation), the fanatics (of any religion), etc.
That is part of the predictable argument. It would be immoral (unless you can show your reasoning?) for the reasons already given. It may be necessary for self-preservation to kill in self-defence, but that has little impact on whether it is moral or not.
Addressed in a previous post.
Well, if you ask anyone with a developed moral sense the question “is it moral to kill someone” chances are the answer will be “no” because killing other humans from the same tribe is simply not a part of civilization; it is frowned upon to say the least. From country to country, you will come across the universal concept that killing another human from your tribe is wrong. So in that sense it is a universal, or perhaps global would be a better word, concept. The only exception to the rule I can think of arises when self-interests are involved (thirst for revenge, self-defence, personal gain, hatred, etc. are all self-interests that seem to have no trouble overriding respect for life).
There’s also more material than this further back in the thread, including the linked article.
I feel I have to point out that I joined this debate (refer to my extremely rhetorical first post in this thread) because I wanted to stimulate the discussion along more rigorous lines than the airing of opinion (to which such discussions frequently degenerate after a day or two). My position for the purposes of this discussion is that of the anti-DP guy (as if you hadn’t already guessed).
Wasn’t there a thread ( I think it got eaten ) here a while ago with a lot of people argueing that it was OK to shoot and kill a guy who was stealing a car. That’s a pretty low value if you ask me. Granted there were a lot of Americans disagreeing with this view but there was a very strong lobby in that thread that said protection of property (any property) is a valid reason to take a life.
I wasn’t trying to use the bandwagon arguement to justify the death penalty. I simply used examples to show you that the concept of all killing being immoral is not universally accepted. And you yourself used the bandwagon fallacy. Remember when you pointed out that many “civilized” nations such as those found in Europe and Canada don’t have the DP and therefore it is uncivilized? If that wasn’t using the bandwagon to justify something I don’t know what is.
**
What makes you think the millions of Americans who agree with the DP are the unwashed masses? What makes you think they are uninformed? What qualifies someone to have an informed opinion?
I ask because it kind of sounds like anyone who doesn’t agree with you will be part of the uninformed unwashed masses.
**
Again, I’ll point out that it wasn’t said as a justification of the death penalty. It was presented as evidence that killing is not universally accepted as wrong. To be clear I don’t think self-defense has anything to do with the DP. They are completely seperate issues.
**
If you asked me that question I would also probably say yes. Mainly because I will assume that you’re really asking “is it moral to murder someone?” If you were to ask me “is it always immoral to kill someone” I would of course answer in the negative.
**
So in a sense it is, but, in reality it isn’t. Yeah we all accept that killing another member of the tribe is bad. But most tribes also decided that they’d severly punish those guilty of such crimes. In the past the only effective punishment for such crimes was the death penalty. Of course now I would agree that we could just lock people away for life and do away with the DP.
Well Abe, after lots of obfuscation and chanting of mantras like “Fallacy!” on your part, I see that your roundabout answer to my question can be summarized as follows:
Potential wrongful deaths involving unjustly imprisoned individuals are accidents/imperfections of the system which do not have to be comprehensively addressed in the same manner as potential wrongful deaths due to execution, which I and others find so abhorrent that the death penalty itself must be eliminated.
That’s a lovely stand, and no doubt salves your conscience in some incalculable way. You’ll have to forgive me for noting that it is (to use your own words), a pile of manure.
Er, no. His position is that killing people is morally repugnant, so we shouldn’t do it. We’re not talking about a last-choice no-alternative him-or-me killing scenario here. We’re talking about taking a man who has already been restrained and cold-bloodedly strapping him down and choosing to take his life. If you do think that killing is a terrible, terrible thing then how can you possibly justify this?
The fact that you might kill the wrong person is just a very pursuasive side-issue.
Um, sorry, but I still see a desperate avoidance of the issue of deaths in prison (inmates, guards and other workers). The premature death of these individuals due to violence or disease generates not the tiniest fraction of the anti-DPers’ outrage directed at a system that occasionally executes murderers.
Where’s a comparable sense of “moral repugnance”?
It must be awfully hard to maintain that intellectual/moral disconnect, short of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting “Fallacy!”.
So you think that a system that does its best to not kill any people at all but occasionally fails in that task is flawed, whereas one that intentionally kills people is not?
Where’s the consistency in that?
The first is a case that is morally consistent but needs improvement in execution (yes, bad pun) whereas the second fails at the very first axiom.
So use it. Address the issue.**
) here a while ago with a lot of people argueing that it was OK to shoot and kill a guy who was stealing a car. That’s a pretty low value if you ask me. Granted there were a lot of Americans disagreeing with this view but there was a very strong lobby in that thread that said protection of property (any property) is a valid reason to take a life.