Guys, I think we have gone way beyond the Ops question.
But he remembered it during the initial court cases. His dementia long post-dates the conviction.
(Granted, I’m against the death penalty anyway.)
Huh? Look at post 53, where David quoted you. I took what you said in that quote exactly the same way as he interpreted it. That’s all I’m saying. Whatever you mean, it’s not coming across at all clearly.
You want I should quote myself? I didn’t start extensively using the term until I wrote this:
and
“Justice” is the notion that there are consequences that ‘deserve’ to follow from actions, that might not be natural consequences and which thus will need to be posed by an outside authority. Now, the societal notion of what, specifically, is a just response to a given crime is basically arbitrary - it feeds up from the populace (in which case it often looks like vengeance) or it feeds down from wise heads (in which case it looks more like deterrence and sequestration and other things with expected positive outcomes) or it feeds down from corrupt heads (in which case it looks like a way to fund said heads or oppress a population). It’s a mixed bag, and can be good or bad or anywhere in between.
But your average joe, or juror, or even judge isn’t necessary in a great position to objectively assess the merit of every single punishment that gets assigned to a crime. There are a lot of them, after all. So many of them will take the easy route and assume the system is mostly fine, because at least it’s better than anarchy and vengeance killings.
A person in that position can support a given punishment without giving o’ermuch worry to how many people it will deter or contain. (An example of this will be every single judge who doesn’t scale traffic tickets to match the net worth of the speeder, so every single judge.) This notion that one is supporting the system for the system’s sake is a belief in the principle of justice - or more specifically in justice-as-defined-by-the-justice-system.
A belief in justice doesn’t tell you which punishment should go with which crime; it allows you to accept the punishments that your society gives out for crimes so you don’t have to enact your own justice system yourself (and doubtlessly get arrested for your actions in doing so).
If you don’t think that everybody who believes that criminals should be punished for their crimes is filled with murderous bloodlust, then the next question would be whether you think that every single person who isn’t a psycho gives careful consideration to the deterrent and sequestrating effects of a given punishment before accepting it as being reasonably valid.
If the answer to that is also no, then there must be a third reason why people accept specific punishments as being reasonable punishments for specific crimes.
What you said more fully was
[My bold.]
This is where this conversation went off the rails. You’re talking about something that’s not deterrence, not sequestration; you label it “justice” (begging the question of what’s just), but then also claim it’s not vengeance.
I have, quite frankly, no idea what you’re trying to say.
Why yes, I am absolutely certain I can readily prove that there’s a third possible motivation for supporting a legal system besides vengeance and considered thought on the best way to deter or sequester people, why do you ask?
Please just stop the rhetoric and explain what you think that third reason is, if it’s not deterrence, not sequestration, and not vengeance.
Guys, this argument is sorta a hijack.
Why? This is GD, the OP is about morality in the justice system, specifically the importance of the state of mind of the perpetrator. Where would you expect such a debate to go?
In another thread, in GD. The Op asked “**Morality of executing someone who cannot remember his crime”. **
Not for a general debate on the morality of crime and punishment or yet another general debate on the Death penalty.
On the subject of whether a person should still be held accountable for actions they no longer remember, one possible reason why they should still be held accountable is if the reasons to hold them accountable still apply regardless of their advanced age and infirm state.
If the person is a doddering person who doesn’t have any evil thoughts left in their head, then there’s no longer a motivation to remove them from society.
If the goal is to deter people…I have no idea whether killing geriatrics who’ve lost their minds deters anybody. I sort of think the deterrence factor would still be there even if you released him, because they were imprisoned for their entire usable life. That or it’s already entirely failed, because despite deserving death they didn’t get it when it mattered.
If the goal is to enact revenge, it’s largely failed - the people who would enjoy dancing on his grave have spent longer being denied that privilege than they’ll get the chance to enjoy it, and those who like their revenge cold will be deprived the pleasure of their victim understanding their fate.
But if the goal is to carry out the punishment as legally decided then it’s entirely ethical to do so - exactly as ethical as it would have been to do it when he still had his faculties. Assuming, of course, that we can recognize/admit that having a functioning justice system is a justification unto itself.
(And with that, I’m going home for the day.)
We are not debating the death penalty.
I don’t see how you can reasonably expect that an OP about the relevance of the state of the mind of the criminal will not involve a debate on the fundamental principles of just punishment.
Well, that’s the OP.
Because you have gone off the rails into something far removed from the Ops question.
But I am not a Mod, so have fun.
In your opinion.
We may have got in the weeds, but not from a lack of intent to discuss the OP’s question.
Please, can you explain what you mean, preferably briefly? I’m not trying to win rhetorical points here, I genuinely just want to know what you’re talking about.
In most states, appeals are automatic and mandatory in capital cases.
Thirty years worth of appeals? :dubious:
Not to mention that the doctor who claimed Madison cannot remember was hired by the defense. A court-appointed psychologist
Cite.
As I have mentioned in the past, it is not always a good idea to accept what anti-DP advocates say at face value.
Regards,
Shodan
Yes, but the Op was not necessarily asking about this one case. It was a hypothetical.
Assuming that the perp really is mentally gone to the point he doesn’t remember, shoudl we still execute him?
And my answer, is- if he is that far gone, he wont commit another murder, so no, we should not execute him.
Not necessarily. Verne Gagne was a very well known professional wrestler in the Midwest, and a promoter, who lost out to Vince McMahon’s WWE. He suffered a decline in his later years, and while in a nursing home and suffering from dementia, killed another resident. Legally, and IMO morally, he didn’t commit a murder, because he suffered from dementia to the point where he couldn’t form criminal intent. But he did kill somebody.
Aggressive behavior is one of the common reasons that people with dementia are institutionalized.
So whether or not he continues to present a danger to the public, other inmates, and correctional staff, or would if he were given compassionate release, is not affected very much by his alleged dementia.
Regards,
Shodan