Walking Spanish down the hall: Euthanasia and the death penalty [Archive]

LRae12

29-09-08, 05:03 PM

I for one think both should be permissable.

As for the death penalty, I support it in the US because I think there are just some criminals that are so heinous that they should be eliminated. It's that simple. :p

As far as euthenasia (yeah don't know how to spell that one) I think if the patient is suffering tremendously and is of sound enough mind to decide for themselves, they should be allowed to do so. I think you get into tricky ground with the doctors, though, legally, and so I can see why it is in the US for a doctor (kevorkian-types) to be prosecuted for "killing" their patients. I don't agree that the doctors should be prosecuted per se, but I can see instances where it would be too much of a quagmire to permit in a legal sense.

Legal sense aside, morally I think an individual has a right to end their own life if they see fit. I'm not talking crazy suicidal head-cases, but truly ill (say aids or cancer patients for example) that are going to die anyway being able to put an end to their suffering. We put pets down when they suffer and it's considered the humane thing to do. Why can't we have the same right (again morally, legally is a different matter) to end our own suffering?

I don't see much of a distinction between a living will and euthanasia, personally, in the moral category. I think that has more to do with the legal and where authorities have drawn the line to, frankly IMO, cover doctor's asses.

KingofCretins

29-09-08, 05:39 PM

I am opposed to euthanasia morally. I think it creates certain policy problems, too, such as the integrity of estate planning and fraud and bias in making decisions. That said, whatever else, the state should *absolutely* never have a say in deciding when to pull the plug.

I am also opposed to capital punishment. Even one mistakenly executed innocent person is catastrophic moral failure. Life imprisonment is cheaper, accomplishes the public safety goal, and gives an opportunity for personal, spiritual redemption.

Enisy

29-09-08, 05:50 PM

Life imprisonment is cheaper

Is it? Because one argument I keep seeing from pro-death penalty parties is the financial cost of life imprisonment, even though I haven't actually looked into the specifics myself.

I agree with you on both euthanasia and the death penalty, by the way.

KingofCretins

29-09-08, 05:51 PM

In the US, it's cheaper, I should say -- because of the lengthy mandatory and continuing appeals involved, all of which are essential to guard against executing an innocent person. I couldn't say for other countries.

Wolfie Gilmore

29-09-08, 06:28 PM

I for one think both should be permissable.

As for the death penalty, I support it in the US because I think there are just some criminals that are so heinous that they should be eliminated. It's that simple. :p

I don't believe in the death penalty for a number of reasons.

Firstly, on a practical level, there are always possibilities for a miscarriage of justice - at least on a systemic level, if not in invididual cases where someone stabbed someone to death in front of a lot of people.

The chance that someone might not have done the crime they're being killed for (eg they might be guilty of some kind of killing, but not one that would get them the death penalty) isn't one I'm happy with, given that you can't take back the death penalty. Obviously you can't give back years spent in prison either, but at least you can set someone free. I'd rather have a guilty person "get away with it" rather than an innocent person be killed.

However, issues of guilt and innocence aren't my main objection to the death penalty. It comes down to what I think the point of punishment is.

I don't believe in retributive justice of any kind, so the idea of killing someone out of retribution - the "eye for an eye" kind of justice - isn't something I believe in. It's too close to revenge. I feel that I want someone who's done something bad to suffer sometimes, but I also think that is a bad impulse.

Punishing someone for the sake of punishing someone doesn't make sense to me - I don't see what good it does, and it seems to be something we should try to counter in ourselves rather than encourage. I think vengeful thoughts, I want people I hate to suffer or die sometimes... but I don't want those feelings written into law.

I can see the sense in keeping someone dangerous off the streets. I can also see that social order might (though I have no proof of this obviously) require a sense that bad people get punished, or some incentive not to be one of those people. Perhaps vengeful feelings need to be taken into account to stop people from feeling things are unfair, and taking "justice" into their own hands? Lynch mobs and whatnot are not part of my ideal society. If society didn't seem fair in terms of the bad guys getting punished, then... well, I'm not sure what would happen, but it might be bad. Hard to say really, but perhaps you need certain punishments as a deterrent to crimes - that seems to make sense. Be good or you will be punished works to a degree.

So, prison as a deterrent and as a way of making people feel like it's worth being good, and that stops anarchic "justice" seems justifiable to a degree - if you're taking away someone's freedom in order to stop someone else getting murdered, that seems a price possibly worth paying.

But taking away someone's life is too far even for my most utilitarian moods. The bad of killing seems worse than the good of possible deterrent. I'm not sure what the stats are on the death penalty as a deterrent, but even if it were a deterrent, I'm not sure I'd support it.

Also, the idea of state-sponsored killing is something that I find repellent on a very fundamental level that I can't quite explain, so there's that too.

The potential for an abuse of power is scary on one level (corrupt officials being not unknown to human society), but also the idea that killing someone because they killed someone should be something written into the sanctioned fabric of society... that just seems insane.

This is the part of my argument that's not so much an argument as a statement of how I feel about the issue, so the other points are possibly more important for argument's sake. Though I may think through this bit further later.

As far as euthenasia (yeah don't know how to spell that one) I think if the patient is suffering tremendously and is of sound enough mind to decide for themselves, they should be allowed to do so. I think you get into tricky ground with the doctors, though, legally, and so I can see why it is in the US for a doctor (kevorkian-types) to be prosecuted for "killing" their patients.

I agree - the theory of euthanasia is something I support, but the practice is definitely a complicated question. But I believe that as long as there are many checks and balances in place, it would allow people more dignity and prevent suffering that is pointless. It's not something I feel quite able to comment on in terms of what truly constitues a terminal illness - but, I think it should be up to the person who's suffering from that illness to decide whether the suffering is worth the one in a billion chance (or whatever) that they *might* get better.

There are worrying questions surrounding old people, who might feel they were a burden and choose euthanasia for the wrong reasons. So, if it became legal in the UK, I'd want it to be only possible under very limited circumstances (incurable, painful diseases with no quality of life for example).

In the countries where it is legal, do people know what the limits are? Nina I think lives in the Netherlands, perhaps she'd be able to enlighten...?

Ok, I could clearly look this up and am just being lazy :D

am also opposed to capital punishment. Even one mistakenly executed innocent person is catastrophic moral failure. Life imprisonment is cheaper, accomplishes the public safety goal, and gives an opportunity for personal, spiritual redemption.

Dude, I think we have found common ground. That is awesome :)

Sorry, overusing the word awesome is becoming an issue due to much HIMYM viewing.

Anyway, yes, I think the possibility for an innocent execution is a chilling one, even if all else were equal. And you're right, people can change, and providing that opportunity is a good thing.

EvilVampire

29-09-08, 07:14 PM

As always, a question is: for which society?

For instance, if allowing euthanasia would result in people's rioting the government collapsing, I'd rather the government didn't allow it (unless, for some reason, I want the government to collapse :D). However, if we're talking about present day UK or some other EU country, and there were a vote on it, I'd rather see euthanasia allowed. The same for the US, though it's less likely to happen.

Not the death penalty, though.

An argument (in the US) is that it's necessary to protect inmates from other inmates. I don't agree with that view, though, but I have no time to get into the details at the moment. Maybe later, if someone supports that view here. :)

I don't believe in retributive justice of any kind, so the idea of killing someone out of retribution - the "eye for an eye" kind of justice - isn't something I believe in. It's too close to revenge. I feel that I want someone who's done something bad to suffer sometimes, but I also think that is a bad impulse.
Punishing someone for the sake of punishing someone doesn't make sense to me - I don't see what good it does, and it seems to be something we should try to counter in ourselves rather than encourage. I think vengeful thoughts, I want people I hate to suffer or die sometimes... but I don't want those feelings written into law.

As a side note (i.e., a comment about people's behavior, not a judgment), I think when people protest and demand justice, what they're demanding is retribution. They're not demanding that the criminal be reformed, or put in prison to protect society - at least, that does not seem to be their main impulse.

I can see the sense in keeping someone dangerous off the streets. I can also see that social order might (though I have no proof of this obviously) require a sense that bad people get punished, or some incentive not to be one of those people. Perhaps vengeful feelings need to be taken into account to stop people from feeling things are unfair, and taking "justice" into their own hands?
I think social order requires that people perceived as bad by those with sufficient power and willingness to disturb social peace if the people in question aren't punished, be punished. :eviltail:

But taking away someone's life is too far even for my most utilitarian moods. The bad of killing seems worse than the good of possible deterrent. I'm not sure what the stats are on the death penalty as a deterrent, but even if it were a deterrent, I'm not sure I'd support it.

As I mentioned, there's also the argument of protecting other inmates.

Wolfie Gilmore

29-09-08, 07:21 PM

(unless, for some reason, I want the government to collapse :D).

I don't think you need euthanasia for that. You just need Gordon Brown :D

An argument (in the US) is that it's necessary to protect inmates from other inmates. I don't agree with that view, though, but I have no time to get into the details at the moment. Maybe later, if someone supports that view here. :)

I've never heard that one before. Can't they use solitary confinment? Or is that too inhumane? Too expensive perhaps? Just not practical on many levels? Hmm... it's an interesting question, though someone would probably have to work quite hard to convince me that the danger to inmates couldn't be worked around and still outweighed the other bad aspects of the death penalty.

As a side note (i.e., a comment about people's behavior, not a judgment), I think when people protest and demand justice, what they're demanding is retribution. They're not demanding that the criminal be reformed, or put in prison to protect society - at least, that does not seem to be their main impulse.

Reform isn't usually what people want in those contexts, no. But I think it's definitely a worthy aim. And protection's certainly valid. But retribution... I'd be interested to see what arguments people would put forward in favour of it, and in distinguishing it from vengence/lynch mob mentality.

I think social order requires that people perceived as bad by those with sufficient power and willingness to disturb social peace if the people in question aren't punished, be punished. :eviltail:

Also, if you kill the puppies you can't punish them and they don't bark and that's no fun....[/suddenly channelling evil Willow]

LRae12

29-09-08, 07:35 PM

In my first post when I talked about some criminals being so heinous that they need to be killed, I wasn't referring to your everyday murderer who is guilty, or has a slight chance of possibly being innocent. Who I am referring to are the absolute evil animals that have commited totally horrible disgusting acts. Examples: Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, those types. Though, Jeffrey Dahmer's inmates took care of the death penalty for the penal system. The purpose of prison is *supposedly* reform. There are some who cannot be reformed, and I don't feel that the public should have to financially support them for 60+ years in facilities that (at least in this country) have some better living conditions than the poor people living free.

The_Narrator

29-09-08, 08:10 PM

I don't agree with the Death Penalty for many of the reasons stated above, in that there could be mistakes about the guilt of an individual, that in jail someone has the chance to repent for what they've done (which is surely the most worthwhile aim of punishment - yes, punishment, deterrents and keeping dangerous individuals off the streets etc. are important, but getting someone to see the error of their ways is a very noble aim, and for those very very few who absolutely won't repent (or can't repent if mentally ill? e.g. Ed Gein type serial killers), well, redemption's out of the window but at least jail/hospital keeps the public on the street safe) and more practically, it does cost less.

With regards to euthanasia, I pretty much channel Wolfie here: I agree - the theory of euthanasia is something I support, but the practice is definitely a complicated question. But I believe that as long as there are many checks and balances in place, it would allow people more dignity and prevent suffering that is pointless. It's not something I feel quite able to comment on in terms of what truly constitues a terminal illness - but, I think it should be up to the person who's suffering from that illness to decide whether the suffering is worth the one in a billion chance (or whatever) that they *might* get better.

There are worrying questions surrounding old people, who might feel they were a burden and choose euthanasia for the wrong reasons. So, if it became legal in the UK, I'd want it to be only possible under very limited circumstances (incurable, painful diseases with no quality of life for example). And if euthanasia was legalised, there would also be problems with people who choose it in a fit of passion. E.g. Someone has a row with friends/parents/partner and decide to go euthanise themselves ... not good. Plus, there should be some people disqualified, as they would be unable to make that decision being non compos mentis, e.g. young children, the certifiably insane, someone who is high etc. However, if someone truly believes that their quality of life would deteroriate to the point that they'd choose to die sooner rather than later, I could sympathise strongly.

sherrilina

29-09-08, 08:14 PM

I am also opposed to capital punishment. Even one mistakenly executed innocent person is catastrophic moral failure. Life imprisonment is cheaper, accomplishes the public safety goal, and gives an opportunity for personal, spiritual redemption.
Wow......I have nothing to add. For once I agree 100% with you here! ;) I too am morally opposed to capital punishment for the reasons you specify.

Okay I lie, I do have something to add in relation to the US government, and whether it should be legal here or not--I personally think that capital punishment falls under cruel and unusual punishment in the 8th amendment. Or at least certain punishments do without a doubt, IMO, like the electric chair--how states were able to get away with having it on the books and using it to execute people for so long is beyond me. How is frying/electrocuting someone to death not both unusual and cruel? (Especially for people like Julius Rosenberg who weren't killed the first time, and had to be fried all over again?). Even with lethal injection today, if it's true that the prisoners subjected to it feel immense pain, but are unable to move or express anything during the process, that strikes me as rather cruel and unusual as well.

I realize that capital punishment was commonplace and accepted when the Founders wrote the bill of rights, and so one could argue that it can't count as cruel and unusual punishment. But on the other hand, think about the most common methods of execution in those times--hanging and beheading (with beheading often being the merciful route). How often are people hung or beheaded in the US today? Almost never--beheading in particular is often seen as somewhat barbaric now. Standards change, so that I think interpretation of that amendment has to be a little flexible as well.

I think it's notable that the US is the only Western power that still has capital punishment......

Risa

29-09-08, 08:16 PM

KingofCretins

29-09-08, 08:17 PM

Actually, I think it's outside the Supreme Court's legitimate authority to find the death penalty unconstitutional under the 8th Amendment. The original understanding of the language when that was drafted was very clearly not meant to include capital punishment. And, since I'm a textualist, originalist, and a federalist, that should be the rule. But Congress, state legislatures, or an amendment could do away with it.

The_Narrator

29-09-08, 08:23 PM

(with beheading often being the merciful route). I think I'd prefer beheading or a firing squad, which offers instant or near-instant death, over lethal injection:
http://scientificactivist.blogspot.com/2006/05/nature-versus-nurturing-death-penalty.html
The potential to be paralyzed but still able to feel your heart slowly stop and your lungs stop taking in air, under less anaesthetic than the amount used putting animals down at the vets?* I can't think of a more inhumane thing to do to someone else, regardless of their crimes.

*I tried looking for the article that said the bit about the amount of anaesthetic, but I can't find it. I definitely remember reading it though. That scientific review site has the evidence for the rest though.

bknick

29-09-08, 08:41 PM

I really thought this thread was about Tom Waits. And then, in true Waits fashion, it is something completely different.

I agree with the death penalty depending on the severity of a crime. Why should murderers deserve to live, and, why should we keep them alive and taking up money and space?

sueworld

29-09-08, 08:46 PM

don't believe in retributive justice of any kind, so the idea of killing someone out of retribution - the "eye for an eye" kind of justice - isn't something I believe in. It's too close to revenge. I feel that I want someone who's done something bad to suffer sometimes, but I also think that is a bad impulse.

Yep, I totally agree with you there. So yes, I'm totally against the death penalty under any circumstances.

I agree - the theory of euthanasia is something I support, but the practice is definitely a complicated question. But I believe that as long as there are many checks and balances in place, it would allow people more dignity and prevent suffering that is pointless. It's not something I feel quite able to comment on in terms of what truly constitues a terminal illness - but, I think it should be up to the person who's suffering from that illness to decide whether the suffering is worth the one in a billion chance (or whatever) that they *might* get better.

There are worrying questions surrounding old people, who might feel they were a burden and choose euthanasia for the wrong reasons. So, if it became legal in the UK, I'd want it to be only possible under very limited circumstances (incurable, painful diseases with no quality of life for example).

Once again I agree. As someone who nursed both my parents for many years, I can understand how difficult long term illnesses can be, and how devastating it can be on the family and the person involved.

At the very end I was given the heart rending decision whetehr or not to artificially feed my own Mother or just let her die 'naturally'. After doing extensive research on the viability of 'peg feeding' an elderly person with dementia I chose to let her die, believing it to be the kindest option. My father also was on the point of having to be peg fed, but he ended up dying before I had to make that his decision for him too.

I've never regretted doing that, even though at the time it devastated me. So you could say that some kind of euthanasia was in play there, and still is in many hospitals in the UK, where patients suffering is brought to an end by either withholding treatment or by over medicating.

sherrilina

29-09-08, 09:09 PM

I am absolutely in favor of the death penalty and euthanasia.

I am in favor of euthanasia because I believe elderly and terminally ill people should have the right not to suffer. When an elderly person is hooked up to machines and can do nothing but lie in bed waiting to die, why should they not have the right to decide when to go? Same with a terminally ill person.

I am in favor of the death penalty for quite a few reasons. One...it is cheaper. I don't care what anyone else says...it is cheaper than housing thousands of criminals for decades. Criminals that will most likely have to be put in solitary confinement and watched over by guards all day and all night. Crimanls that can not be rehabilitated and should never see the light of day again. I am with LRae on this one. The death penalty is there so we can get rid of the sociopaths and other murderers who do not deserve to live. When a person walks into a court room, says he is guilty, has no remorse and says if given the chance he will do it again...why in the world should we keep him locked in a cell for the rest of his life? So he can appeal and appeal, and find some stupid technicality and walk?!? Or so someday, when someone messes up, he kills a few people, escapes, and starts to murder others again?!?! In my opinion people like that deserve nothing more than a death penalty. At least they get an alcohol swab, a clean needle and a last meal. That is a lot more than their victims got.
But the fact is that it's NOT cheaper--not when you take into account all the legal appeals they get before being killed. And these legal appeals are quite necessary safeguards against wrongful execution, as KoC pointed out--wouldn't you like to have as many appeals as possible if somehow you were accused of a crime wrongfully sometime?

Actually, I think it's outside the Supreme Court's legitimate authority to find the death penalty unconstitutional under the 8th Amendment. The original understanding of the language when that was drafted was very clearly not meant to include capital punishment. And, since I'm a textualist, originalist, and a federalist, that should be the rule. But Congress, state legislatures, or an amendment could do away with it.
Heh, I figured you'd say that! ;) But I think that they probably meant to include certain forms of capital punishment within that amendment--for example at one point treason in England merited hanging, drawing, and quartering, an excessively cruel way of punishing/killing someone, even to many contemporaries. I wouldn't be surprised if that was one kind of thing that the Founders were referring to in the amendment.....and likewise I think that certain methods of the death penalty that are excessively cruel should fall under that category--that don't just cause death, but which cause great suffering in the process, like the electric chair, or perhaps lethal injection as it transpires.

KingofCretins

29-09-08, 09:15 PM

Risa

29-09-08, 09:36 PM

But the fact is that it's NOT cheaper--not when you take into account all the legal appeals they get before being killed. And these legal appeals are quite necessary safeguards against wrongful execution, as KoC pointed out--wouldn't you like to have as many appeals as possible if somehow you were accused of a crime wrongfully sometime?

Yes if i was accused wrongly, I would like a few chances. But I wonder what the statistics are, on people just doing appeals trying to get out of it all. Guilty people get to appeal just as much as the innocent do...probably more considering all the stupid loopholes and technicalities that can be found. I think they should put a limit on appeals unless there is some real good evidence. The death penalty would be cheaper if we didn't let the murderers appeal for so many years. In some states you are more likely to die of old age before you ever get executed.

sherrilina

29-09-08, 09:37 PM

The key is to look to the custom of the day -- hanging or firing squad were simply not considered cruel or unusual. So, while, yes, the Supreme Court could strike down a state or federal law permitting them to do all that Braveheart stuff, the mere fact of execution is beyond it's reach under Article III. That's a legislative matter.
Lol, "hanging, drawing, and quartering" wasn't just Braveheart--it was on the books up until 1870 for treason, well past the time of the Bill of Rights. And I'm saying that things like the electric chair and lethal injection could be considered modern equivalents in suffering to hanging, drawing, and quartering. They certainly cause more pain than firing squad and hanging.

Nina

29-09-08, 10:13 PM

In the countries where it is legal, do people know what the limits are? Nina I think lives in the Netherlands, perhaps she'd be able to enlighten...?

I'm too tired right now to say (or read) a lot about this subject right now ... I hope that this isn't already posted. :p

Our law:

The patient's suffering is unbearable with no prospect of improvement.
The patient's request for euthanasia must be voluntary and persist over time (the request cannot be granted when under the influence of others, psychological illness or drugs).
The patient must be fully aware of his/her condition, prospects and options.
There must be consultation with at least one other independent doctor who needs to confirm the conditions mentioned above.
The death must be carried out in a medically appropriate fashion by the doctor or patient, in which case the doctor must be present .
The patient is at least 12 years old (patients between 12 and 16 years of age require the consent of their parents)

Every case goes to a committee with at least one physician, one lawyer and one ethicus who has to decide if the medical practitioner did his job well. These people are chosen by our goverment.

EvilVampire

30-09-08, 03:05 AM

I've never heard that one before. Can't they use solitary confinment? Or is that too inhumane? Too expensive perhaps? Just not practical on many levels? Hmm... it's an interesting question, though someone would probably have to work quite hard to convince me that the danger to inmates couldn't be worked around and still outweighed the other bad aspects of the death penalty.

I heard (i.e., read) it in some other forum.
A possible answer would be that they could be kept in the same conditions that people sentenced to death are kept, only for life. It's expensive, but probably less than the death penalty.

In general, they could make prisons exclusively for those who'd otherwise be executed, and let them choose whether they prefer imprisonment for life with other killers, or death. I think most would choose the latter (but I don't think many Americans would accept that).

Another way to argue the case would be to point out that (standarized) murder rates in prison are lower (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-08-21-prisondeaths_N.htm) than (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/shsplj.htm) among the general population, and then compare rates in states with death penalty vs. others and see if there's much (if any) difference, etc.

But that would take too long. :D

Reform isn't usually what people want in those contexts, no. But I think it's definitely a worthy aim. And protection's certainly valid. But retribution... I'd be interested to see what arguments people would put forward in favour of it, and in distinguishing it from vengence/lynch mob mentality.

In my experience, they'd say something like "it's not vengeance, it's justice", "it's the law", etc.

But when it isn't the law (say, amnesty laws for criminals, etc.), they will still protest.

They'll also argue that it's necessary for protecting society. But what if the perpetrator of heinous acts (say, mass torture and mass murder) is in his eighties or nighties, frail and ill, with no political power, and there's no realistic chance that he or anyone else will be able to do the same in the future? (e.g., some of South America's former military dictators and some of their minions).

The fact is that people will still demand justice (i.e., they will demand that he be punished). Don't get me wrong; I'm not judging those demanding punishment, but just making an observation about human behavior.

Wolfie Gilmore

30-09-08, 10:51 AM

The death penalty is there so we can get rid of the sociopaths and other murderers who do not deserve to live.

It's this question of deserving that I take issue with. I see the criminal justice system as a way of keeping people in society safe as far as is possible without too much intervention/curbing of freedoms. Eg, we could keep people safe by putting everyone under house arrest, but sometimes, safety isn't worth the price to society in other ways. The chance that a murderer might kill again if we don't kill him or her is a chance I'm willing to take not to be in a society that kills people through official channels.

A victim doesn't deserve to be killed - no one, imo, "deserves" death. There are circumstances, such as certain wars, where government-sanctioned killing is a sad necessity. But it's not a question of deserving - enemy soldiers don't deserve to die in war, even if they do terrible things (human rights abuses etc).

I don't believe in God, but I do believe that it's no one's right to say what someone does or doesn't deserve (if it was anyone's job, it would be God's, but even if I believed in God, I like to think he'd be infinitely forgiving). Deciding who deserves what - espeically death - is, imo, above everybody's pay grade, because once society starts claiming to be able to judge a person in some absolute, moral sense, and to attempt to give them what they "deserve", then I feel you're into very risky territory.

It's all too easy to dish out just deserts from the wrong motives - and impossible, I feel, to know that your motives on that score *are* the right ones, since murder is such an emotive issue, how can we know we're not acting out of vengence?

I really thought this thread was about Tom Waits. And then, in true Waits fashion, it is something completely different.

Perhaps everything is about Tom Waits in the end. There should be a "six degrees of Tom Waits" game. Things like Bram Stoker's Dracula and The Wire make that pretty easy, imo, cos you get Gary Oldman and that guy who was in 28 Weeks Later and Ultraviolet...

Anyway, back to death.

I agree with the death penalty depending on the severity of a crime. Why should murderers deserve to live, and, why should we keep them alive and taking up money and space?

Again, I take issue with the idea of "deserve" in this context. Who has the right to say what someone deserves, especially when it comes to life and death, after which there's no chance to change.

Yep, I totally agree with you there. So yes, I'm totally against the death penalty under any circumstances.

I might just make an exception for people who talk in the theatre ;)

At the very end I was given the heart rending decision whetehr or not to artificially feed my own Mother or just let her die 'naturally'. After doing extensive research on the viability of 'peg feeding' an elderly person with dementia I chose to let her die, believing it to be the kindest option. My father also was on the point of having to be peg fed, but he ended up dying before I had to make that his decision for him too.

That is very sad. I'm sorry. It does seem that these decisions - however painful - can spare suffering. And you're right that we have a kind of euthanasia already.

I'm too tired right now to say (or read) a lot about this subject right now ... I hope that this isn't already posted. :p

No it hasn't, thank you very much Nina. :)

Our law:

[LIST]
The patient's suffering is unbearable with no prospect of improvement.

Having seen far too many medical dramas, I do feel uncomfortable with this, as part of me thinks...but what if they have a miracle recovery! But that's probably so rare (and I really shouldn't base my views about medicine on House MD, even if he is beautifully gravelly and awesome...)

The patient's request for euthanasia must be voluntary and persist over time (the request cannot be granted when under the influence of others, psychological illness or drugs).

The "persistence over time" clause seems key - someone might lose hope one day but feel able to face things again the next.

Every case goes to a committee with at least one physician, one lawyer and one ethicus who has to decide if the medical practitioner did his job well. These people are chosen by our goverment.

That still seems quite a small barrier somehow. What do you feel about the checks and balances in place?

In general, they could make prisons exclusively for those who'd otherwise be executed, and let them choose whether they prefer imprisonment for life with other killers, or death. I think most would choose the latter (but I don't think many Americans would accept that).

So, in a sense, it would be euthanasia for death row! Interesting idea.

In my experience, they'd say something like "it's not vengeance, it's justice", "it's the law", etc.

But when it isn't the law (say, amnesty laws for criminals, etc.), they will still protest.

Sorry, you've lost me there - surely amnesty laws are laws? Untangle my brains for me?

They'll also argue that it's necessary for protecting society. But what if the perpetrator of heinous acts (say, mass torture and mass murder) is in his eighties or nighties, frail and ill, with no political power, and there's no realistic chance that he or anyone else will be able to do the same in the future? (e.g., some of South America's former military dictators and some of their minions).

He might pull out his dentures and give someone a nasty suck? :)

EvilVampire

30-09-08, 11:13 AM

Sorry, you've lost me there - surely amnesty laws are laws? Untangle my brains for me?
Sorry, I meant that when someone commits a serious crime (i.e., the law says they have to be punished), people demand justice, and they can say - as a justification - that the law needs to be enforced (for whatever social reasons).

However, when there's an amnesty law (so, in this case the law does not say the perpetrators have to be punished), people often still demand punishment. Again, not blaming them for demanding punishment. :)

=Wolfie Gilmore]
He might pull out his dentures and give someone a nasty suck? :)

You're right, they need to be contained. :)

But seriously, I have no problem if they get condemned. I'm just pointing out that the objective seems to be punishment.

Side note: punitive behavior is normally observed in our relatives (from capuchin monkeys to chimps and other apes), so it's not surprising that humans have the same kind of impulses.

Wolfie Gilmore

30-09-08, 12:45 PM

Sorry, I meant that when someone commits a serious crime (i.e., the law says they have to be punished), people demand justice, and they can say - as a justification - that the law needs to be enforced (for whatever social reasons).

However, when there's an amnesty law (so, in this case the law does not say the perpetrators have to be punished), people often still demand punishment. Again, not blaming them for demanding punishment. :)

Right, I understand.

Why don't you blame people for demanding punishment? Is that because you don't feel you have the right to judge other people, or because you think their desire is morally neutral in itself?

You're right, they need to be contained. :)

Stop that man! He might snap one of his brittle bones and hit you with it!

But seriously, I have no problem if they get condemned. I'm just pointing out that the objective seems to be punishment.

Side note: punitive behavior is normally observed in our relatives (from capuchin monkeys to chimps and other apes), so it's not surprising that humans have the same kind of impulses.

Will Self was right then? We are Great Apes. Only not so great sometimes.

Anon

30-09-08, 01:13 PM

I don't approve of the death penalty. I think that the purpose of our justice system is to protect the innocent and the death penalty doesn't do that. In fact, quite the opposite. It results in innocent people being killed.

As for euthanasia, I do approve of it, but I can see the need for precautions to prevent the system being abused. If a person is dying and keeping them alive would only make them suffer, it is better to let them decide whether or not they want to die, and if they choose to die then we should make sure that this option is made available to them.

EvilVampire

30-09-08, 11:21 PM

Why don't you blame people for demanding punishment? Is that because you don't feel you have the right to judge other people, or because you think their desire is morally neutral in itself?

I know this isn't going to be a satisfactory answer, but the most accurate one would probably be that I just don't find their actions offensive. It's - as usual, I think - an intuitive judgment (or lack thereof).

But then, I suppose you ask for reasons ;), which is when people do when they try to convince others of a moral stance...I'm not trying, but still, I'd say that no one has given me reasons that would convince me to blame them (all of them), and I don't blame people by default, so I don't blame them.

That's not to say that I'd never blame anyone who demands punishment, but I'm not doing so in general.

Speculating a bit about my own judgments, I tend not to blame large sets of people without considering the individual cases; there are exceptions, but in those cases the set has to be defined in terms of something I'd always blame people for (e.g., I'd blame all people who torture others for fun, but I'm not going to go as far as to blame all those who seek retribution regardless of the particular circumstances; it's just too unspecific for me).

Will Self was right then? We are Great Apes. Only not so great sometimes.
Will Self?

Sorry, I'm not getting the reference. :)

Is it from the novel "Great Apes"?

Anyway, I find the question a bit ambiguous... is that a biology question?

Not a biologist, but in any case, we could make it more precise: it's not so much what word we used, but what properties the question is about.

If it's not a biology question, then what's it about?

But the point I was trying to make was that the fact that people have punitive sentiments isn't the result of cultural conditions (though culture and other environmental factors will influence who tries to punish whom), but of the evolutionary process, which makes it unlikely that the behavior will change any time soon (at least for most people).

Humans tend to seek punishment.

It was an anthropological/psychological observation if you like (not an anthropologist or psychologist, though, so just opining :D), not a judgment or an indication of a stance in a moral issue.

bknick

01-10-08, 02:02 AM

I just realized I never weighed in on euthanasia...

I also believe that a person's right to life is in their own hands. If they honestly feel that they would rather be taken out of their world, no one else has the right to tell them otherwise. Whether or not this means someone else should aid in anyway (such as giving euthanasia) is an entirely different question, and one that is fraught with many a speed bump.

Perhaps everything is about Tom Waits in the end. There should be a "six degrees of Tom Waits" game. Things like Bram Stoker's Dracula and The Wire make that pretty easy, imo, cos you get Gary Oldman and that guy who was in 28 Weeks Later and Ultraviolet...

Lest not we also forget Mystery Men...

This country would be so much better off if everything was about Tom Waits. He would be related to absolutely everything in the nation, the population would all know of his brilliant ways.

This version of the country, however, would ironically be one that Tom Waits himself would despise.

Cori

01-10-08, 11:29 AM

I’m vehemently opposed to the death penalty because I strongly believe that the state/government should not have the authority to murder its own citizens. IMO this makes the state/government no better than the criminals it is trying to punish. Arguably, there are criminals that cannot be reformed and thus they should be locked up for life. I find the argument that the death penalty is cheaper than life imprisonment rather callous to be honest, especially when you consider the fact that there might be innocent/wrongly accused people among such prisoners.

Something which honestly baffles me is that even some Christians (also on this forum) seem to be for the death penalty. Now I’m not a religious person but even I can recognise the good in Jesus’ teachings (for example the grace of charity) or in the Ten Commandments (“You shall not murder”). So how do devout Christians reconcile approval of the death penalty with Jesus’ teachings or Christianity in general? Or do they all believe in the “eye for an eye” thing of the Old Testament?

With respect to euthanasia: if regulated and supervised properly I’m for it. I strongly believe that every human being should have the right to end his or her life if they see no other way. For example if I was terminally ill and all I had to look forward to was endless suffering, I would consider euthanasia. As mentioned above, I’m not religious so I have no ethical or moral problems with that. For me it all comes down to choice. Every person should have the choice to do with his or her own life as they see fit. Now in Switzerland assisted suicide is legally condoned (more on that below) but this doesn’t mean that it’s not still a very touchy subject. Some assisted suicide organisations have received some bad press lately due to their practices, which of course does not further the cause. As mentioned above, I think that the regulations and guidelines regarding euthanasia should be very strict so that abuse can be prevented at all costs. A recent development in Switzerland has been that quite a few people from foreign countries (most of all neighbouring countries such as Germany where assisted suicide is illegal) have come to Switzerland to use such organisations and to die here.

Some information on Switzerland’s complicated position on assisted suicide/euthanasia:

Switzerland has an unusual position on assisted suicide: it is legally condoned and can be performed by non-physicians. Euthanasia is illegal, but there is a debate about decriminalisation that also discusses participation by non-physicians.

The involvement of a physician is usually considered a necessary safeguard in assisted suicide and euthanasia. Legislation in Holland, Belgium, and the US state of Oregon all require it, as did the legalisation of euthanasia in Australia's Northern Territories. Physicians are trusted not to misuse these practices; along with pharmacists they are in control of prescription drugs. Physicians are believed to know how to ensure a painless death, and they are in a position to offer palliative care knowledgeably.

Switzerland seems to be the only country in which the law limits the circumstances in which assisted suicide is a crime, thereby decriminalising it in other cases, without requiring the involvement of a physician. Consequently, non-physicians have participated in assisted suicide. The law has explicitly separated the issue of whether or not assisting death should be allowed in some circumstances, from that of whether physicians should do it. This separation has not resulted in moral desensitisation of assisted suicide and euthanasia.

Source: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7383/271

Personally, I’m not happy that non-physicians are allowed to offer assisted suicide in Switzerland. I think assisted suicide/euthanasia should always involve a physician and I believe our law should be changed accordingly to ensure avoidance of abuse. Of course this does not mean that physicians won’t abuse their power but personally I trust them more than some organisations which make money off of assisting people in their suicide.

Nina

01-10-08, 11:29 AM

Having seen far too many medical dramas, I do feel uncomfortable with this, as part of me thinks...but what if they have a miracle recovery! But that's probably so rare (and I really shouldn't base my views about medicine on House MD, even if he is beautifully gravelly and awesome...)
The physican will never do it when the chance on recovery is there ... if he does he will be a murderer and trailed like one. That miracle recovery has already the name in it ... miracle. It's not something that will happen in the most cases and in that case I don't think you should wait for a miracle.

That still seems quite a small barrier somehow. What do you feel about the checks and balances in place?
I was suprised to see that it didn't happen in place, but it has probably to do with the confidentiality. And like I said before, if a physican makes a mistake ... there is quite a punishment for the man.

vampmogs

01-10-08, 11:54 AM

I'm torn on the death penalty. I say that I don't agree with it, yet I'm not too broken up by the idea of a truly horrible disgusting person being prosecuted under it, so am I against it? I really don't know. But as others have pointed out, there's *huge* risks in allowing an innocent person to be killed who may be wrongly convicted of a crime they didn't commit. And perhaps that price is just to high.

In regards to euthanasia, I'm a supporter. I don't feel comfortable telling someone "no because I believe it's morally wrong you shouldn't have that choice either!" because what gives me the right to say that? That's forcing my morals upon someone else, someone who may be in agony and unable or "not allowed" to end their own life, because my morality comes up with no. That seems bizare and unjust to me, a person is in charge of their own life and under some circumstances I think it's perfectly justified and up to them to be able to take their own life if they're in such horrible agony they can't bare to continue living.

KingofCretins

01-10-08, 05:00 PM

Cori, I can't present the reasoning of all Christians, of course, but as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the death penalty is *almost* completely out of bounds.

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behaviors harmful to people’s rights and the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment, then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: As far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities that the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm—without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent" (Evangelium Vitae 56).

Catechism of the Catholic Church

So, the Catholic Church would make an allowance for capital punishment if 1) the identity of the guilty is established without possibility of error and 2) execution is the only way to defend innocent lives. But the last paragraph under 2267 makes clear that the Church feels this is an exceptionally unlikely scenario. Maybe on "Lost".

Michael

04-10-08, 03:09 PM

I am against the death penalty because the possibility of error is real and serious. I have lost count of the number of miscarriages of justice that have come to light in regard to what would have been capital crimes. The police and criminal justice systems are too flawed to be trusted to that extent.

However, I have to disagree with Wolfie about retribution. It seems to me that the concept of "just deserts" stands right at the heart of our moral culture. It applies also in the case of giving rewards and recognition to outstanding achievement. Unless you want to go for a deterministic philosophy--which I don't think could ever work--we have to accept "just deserts" as an operating principle.

holypotatoes

05-10-08, 01:38 AM

I'm with LRae and Risa on this one. I most definitely think murderers "deserve" to be killed. Maybe not the murderers that end up killing one person but the murderers that kill multiple people. Any murderer, should be killed as soon as they admit to doing it though. I don't give a damn if they've already been charged and are doing their time in jail. As soon as the words "I did it" come out of their mouths, get a gun and shoot them dead. I don't want to spend my tax dollars trying to keep those creeps alive. No way. And I don't care that that would breaking the Double Jeopardy law. :p

I can't remember for sure, but doesn't the government pay the person's (who was executed) family after the exectuion? Gah, I wish I can remember where I heard that. It was something like, since the person sort of had a job while in jail, they were actually making an income for the family so if they got executed the family got paid some amount of money. :s IDK, maybe it was a teacher rambling when I was in school. :xd

As for Euthenasia, I think that should be legalized as well. Like with any law, there can be complications but if you fall into the category of like a terminally ill person and there's nothing a doctor can do about it, it should definitely be an option. Funny story (sorta) but my family talks about this all the time actually and my mom always says if she ever gets to the terminally ill point and there's just no one anyone can do about it, she tells me that I need to bring her to the Netherlands. :roll: But now seeing Nina's post and the rules they have, I'm not sure she would be able to. :lol:

XavierZane

08-10-08, 02:38 PM

http://dilbert.homelinux.org:8081/linuxkungfu/finalmeals.htm

I was Stumbling, came across this site, and thought of this thread. I've always been intrigued by the concept of a final meal, and ever since I was a little kid I've periodically came up with what mine would be. The latest goes thusly (with specific instructions left out):

1 16 ounce New York Strip, medium
1 24 pack of coca-cola classic
2 baked potatoes
3 bowls of potato soup
3 bowls of chili
Beef and Broccoli
1 chicken fried steak
1 bowl of peas, 1 of corn, and 1 of green beans
1 pint of vanilla ice cream and 1 of strawberry, with Hershey's chocolate syrup

What would yours be?

Wolfie Gilmore

08-10-08, 03:51 PM

I know this isn't going to be a satisfactory answer, but the most accurate one would probably be that I just don't find their actions offensive. It's - as usual, I think - an intuitive judgment (or lack thereof).

But, on an emotional level, you don’t get the least bit cross about people baying for blood?

But then, I suppose you ask for reasons ;),

No, not reasons really – more a sense of whether you *feel* upset/angry about a punitive approach to justice? Since moral arguments and emotional reactions are intertwined, it interests me to know where you’re coming from on an intuitive/personal level.

Speculating a bit about my own judgments, I tend not to blame large sets of people without considering the individual cases; there are exceptions, but in those cases the set has to be defined in terms of something I'd always blame people for (e.g., I'd blame all people who torture others for fun, but I'm not going to go as far as to blame all those who seek retribution regardless of the particular circumstances; it's just too unspecific for me).

Ok, so, example: I see a newspaper article about a murder and I immediately think “I hope they fry the bastard who did it”. What would your response be to that?

Will Self?

Sorry, I'm not getting the reference. :)

Is it from the novel "Great Apes"?

Yeah –it’s about a person turning into an ape and finding himself in a society composed of apes and explores the parallels (and lack thereof) between human and chimp ethics.

Anyway, I find the question a bit ambiguous... is that a biology question?

Not really a question, more of a sudden memory of reading Great Apes that led to a reference that didn’t lead anywhere in particular. Like Xander remembering King Ralf and laughing. :) Apologies, it was a bit of a distraction rather than helpful to the discussion!

Humans tend to seek punishment. It was an anthropological/psychological observation if you like (not an anthropologist or psychologist, though, so just opining :D), not a judgment or an indication of a stance in a moral issue.

Right, yes, gotcha.

The physican will never do it when the chance on recovery is there ... if he does he will be a murderer and trailed like one. That miracle recovery has already the name in it ... miracle. It's not something that will happen in the most cases and in that case I don't think you should wait for a miracle.

No. Nor would legislating for miracles be all that much use I suppose. I guess I'd want as many doctors as possible to be involved without making it impossible for the euthanasia to take place. But I think that's probably something best decided by people who know more about medicine than me! Unless everything I've learned from House is enough. In which case, my view on Euthanasia is...it's not lupus :)

Oh and, I forgot to say, my last meal would be….

-
- Three glasses of champagne, not fussy about which as to be honest I can never tell the difference. Plus a glass of dry white and a glass of red wine (I don’t want to face death sober, but I don’t want to be so drunk I vomit or feel sick). Unless my last meal’s the night before? In which case I don’t want a hangover so I’d stick to three or four glasses of champagne.
- Steak and chips (fish and chip shop type chips, the big fat ones) with vinegar and lemon for the chips
- Broccoli
- Mango, pineapple and passion fruit for pudding number one (can we have several puddings?)
- Chocolate cake and ice cream for pudding number two. Or possibly sticky toffee pudding, I can’t decide. Can I have a bit of both?
- Fresh bread
- Oh and a brick lane bagel with egg

KingofCretins

08-10-08, 04:09 PM

Here's an argument against the death penalty I find compelling. Rather than a moral argument, it's a policy/legalist argument that, at least in terms of the United States. The basic theory of our government is that the state derives it's just power from the consent of the government. That means that all of the powers the federal or state governments have they got because the individual citizens *delegated* that power to the state.

But here's the thing -- the individual citizens don't have the just power to kill other people in retribution or for deterrence. So they can't delegate that power to the government. Ergo, the government can't actually have that power.

XavierZane

09-10-08, 01:15 AM

That's a pretty good argument.

My basic thoughts on euthanasia and the death penalty are that a person has the right to do whatever they want with their body, so euthanasia (and suicide) are perfectly alright, but an outside force has no right to decide to end one's life. In the case of a person being in a persistent vegetative state and the chances of that person waking are slim to nil, then the responsibility falls to the spouse/family, but it should never go higher than that.

EvilVampire

09-10-08, 02:37 AM

But, on an emotional level, you don’t get the least bit cross about people baying for blood?

In general, I was talking about people's demanding punishment, not necessarily the death penalty.

My point was that they usually demand punishment for the sake of retribution, not for the sake of, say, deterrence, protection from the perpetrators, etc.

But to answer your question, the fact is that my reaction would depend on the case, but while in the past it used to bother me more frequently, nowadays I usually just ignore them. But then, I'm evil, so...

Ok, so, example: I see a newspaper article about a murder and I immediately think “I hope they fry the bastard who did it”. What would your response be to that?
Since I wouldn't expect you to say that, I'd be a bit surprised.

I guess I'd probably ask you more details about the case (like "could you post a link, please?") as well as the reasons why you prefer that they fry the bastard (even if it's a gut reaction, people tend to give some reasons when asked :) ).

What if someone else says so?

It depends on the case.

If someone I don't know posts something like that on the internet, I'll probably not bother replying, except maybe if he or she is talking to someone I know, or if I just feel like asking (but it very much depends on my mood), in which case I'd ask them why they believe so. It's not PC to say it, but I'd probably be more curious than angry (though that depends on the case too).

If someone says so over here (i.e., not "here in the forum" but "here in the HM where I dwell, :D just a few meters from me"), again, it depends on who says it and my mood, but if it's something I don't know, I'll probably ignore them, or (if they want a response), just ask about the case and their reasons, or simply say "I don't see it that way", again depending on whether I'm in the mood for a debate and the situation.

Yeah –it’s about a person turning into an ape and finding himself in a society composed of apes and explores the parallels (and lack thereof) between human and chimp ethics.

Interesting.

I've not read it, though, so I can't comment on it, but there already are ape societies (chimps, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans are social animals). Whether they have morality is a matter of debate - rather, the use of the term "morality" seems to be under debate, more than the apes' capabilities.

What's true is that they have at least what could be called the precursors of human morality: in particular, chimps (and some other primates) are usually inclined to exact retribution under certain circumstances, as I think most humans are.

Here's an argument against the death penalty I find compelling. Rather than a moral argument, it's a policy/legalist argument that, at least in terms of the United States. The basic theory of our government is that the state derives it's just power from the consent of the government. That means that all of the powers the federal or state governments have they got because the individual citizens *delegated* that power to the state.

But here's the thing -- the individual citizens don't have the just power to kill other people in retribution or for deterrence. So they can't delegate that power to the government. Ergo, the government can't actually have that power.

It's still a moral argument, though, because you rely on the idea of just power. But I'm not sure what to call it power at all.

You say that the individual citizen does not have the "just power" to kill other people in retribution or for deterrence. That seems to be another way of saying that it'd be wrong for an individual citizen to kill other people in retribution or deterrance.

But that's a moral judgment on your part.

Some supporters of the death penalty can say that, for instance, in the absence of the state, individual citizens (or rather, individuals, since "citizen" requires a state) sometimes do no wrong by killing others for deterrence or retribution, or - for instance - for protection of the public if they can't contain him.

In general, they can simply disagree with your moral judgment about the wrongness of killing other people in retribution or for deterrence - or, they can add, for public safety - in the absence of the state.

That aside, it's a particularly interesting argument given your position regarding the interpretation of the US Constitution. Based on your present argument about "just power", it would seem to me that you're implying (please correct me if I'm wrong) that it'd be unconstitutional for the state to use the death penalty because it would be wrong for individuals to do so.

But then again, you said earlier that:

The key is to look to the custom of the day -- hanging or firing squad were simply not considered cruel or unusual. So, while, yes, the Supreme Court could strike down a state or federal law permitting them to do all that Braveheart stuff, the mere fact of execution is beyond it's reach under Article III. That's a legislative matter.
Yet, by the custom of the day, killing people in the absence of the state, for retribution or deterrence or protection of others was not always seen as morally wrong/unjust. I suppose that would depend on the case.

Incidentally, a similar argument can be made for allowing abortions: individuals don't have the just power to deny women the choice to have an abortion (i.e., it's wrong to prevent women from having abortions), so the state doesn't have that power, either (or rather, it's unconstitutional in the US, even if in practice they do have the power).

Of course, a similar argument can be used to say it's unconstitutional to allow abortion, or to prevent citizens from preventing others from having abortions.

Essentially, it's a moral dispute, and similar arguments can be made for or against allowing same-gender marriage, or even same-gender sex, or pretty much anything - or almost so.

Wolfie Gilmore

09-10-08, 01:10 PM

In general, I was talking about people's demanding punishment, not necessarily the death penalty.

Ok then, "I demand that that rascal who stole my purse gets thrown in the slammer!" :)

My point was that they usually demand punishment for the sake of retribution, not for the sake of, say, deterrence, protection from the perpetrators, etc.

Agreed. Though I think for many people the urge to have someone locked up is also because they're afraid of that person and don't want them roaming the streets - even if this fear is irrational (eg someone who murders their wife won't necessarily go out and murder some stranger in the street, because the motives behind killing a particular person don't necessarily make you want to kill many people. It might just be that one person. Unless you murdered your wife because the devil told you to do it, and to buy yourself some pretty knives to spread his death gift to the world of course...).

But to answer your question, the fact is that my reaction would depend on the case, but while in the past it used to bother me more frequently, nowadays I usually just ignore them. But then, I'm evil, so...

You certainly are. :)

Since I wouldn't expect you to say that, I'd be a bit surprised.

Aha, but inside this weak and feeble liberal body lies the heart and stomach of an Old Testament God. :D

I guess I'd probably ask you more details about the case (like "could you post a link, please?") as well as the reasons why you prefer that they fry the bastard (even if it's a gut reaction, people tend to give some reasons when asked :) ).

But why would you ask for their reasons if you know that the reasons aren't what matters? As in, the reasons aren't real reasons but ways of justifying the gut reaction?

If someone I don't know posts something like that on the internet, I'll probably not bother replying, except maybe if he or she is talking to someone I know, or if I just feel like asking (but it very much depends on my mood), in which case I'd ask them why they believe so. It's not PC to say it, but I'd probably be more curious than angry (though that depends on the case too).

Would you, perhaps, be tempted to put them in a room and do experiments..? :D

Interesting.

I've not read it, though, so I can't comment on it, but there already are ape societies (chimps, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans are social animals). Whether they have morality is a matter of debate - rather, the use of the term "morality" seems to be under debate, more than the apes' capabilities.

I think you might enjoy it - if you don't object to Will Self's sometimes incredibly self-satisfied style. I think, like Lorne in "Life of the Party", he appears to want to eat himself up with a spoon because he's sooooo delicious. :D

In the world of Great Apes, chimps have speech and articulated ethical codes, and talk about "Chimpunity" (or...actually I can't remember how they spell it, but their version of humanity) in the abstract. So, he's essentially translating human concepts of morality into a system that would better fit the way real chimps behave (eg their sexual openness).

What's true is that they have at least what could be called the precursors of human morality: in particular, they (and some other primates) are quite retributive, like humans.

Animal proto-morality, or what have you, is fascinating. I remember being very impressed when I found out that meerkats shared childcare. Commie bastards.

So, relating that back to humanity, lets say (for the sake of argument, not because I've studied the topic and come to this conclusion) human beings have certain "moral" inclinations as part of their biological inheritence - or rather, tendencies that they've come to group as part of morality. I suppose you could interpret those tendencies in any number of ways - as evidence that God made us in His rather cross and punitive image, as evidence that certain "moral" inclinations are what's best for human beings from a pragmatic point of view, given that these inclinations are what have allowed us to survive, or as indications of nothing other than the chances of biology, to be ignored in favour of other ways of discovering our morality.

Risa

09-10-08, 02:37 PM

Okay I will probably be laughed out of this thread for this question, but I am curious so I will ask it anyway.
Those of you who are opposed to the death penalty, are you also opposed to putting an animal to sleep that has mauled or killed a person? Say a pit bull gets loose, kills a child while they were playing in the sandbox. What would you have them do with the dog? Confine the dog to a small cell for the rest of his doggie existence, or put him to sleep?
I know a human life and a dog life is not the same thing. But they are both lives. If we choose not to execute humans, does that mean we should have respect for all living creatures and just confine all the rabid animals until they die of old age?

NileQT87

09-10-08, 02:53 PM

The death penalty question was one of the major factors in why Michael Dukakis lost the presidential race.

The infamous question and answer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DF9gSyku-fc

Just food for thought.

Michael

09-10-08, 04:19 PM

Answer to Risa.

Too many cases of miscarriage of justice have come to light in cases which carried, or would have carried, the death sentence. Only a short ago in England the Court of Appeal ruled that the conviction of Barry George for murdering the TV presenter Jill Dando was unsafe and ordered a retrial. In the retrial he was acquitted.

There are many other cases--that we know of-- of people who eventually were released but whose lives had been wrecked beyond repair. I think there are quite a few similar examples in the US. The plain fact is that the police and criminal justice system is too unreliable.

Apart from that pragmatic argument, I believe as a matter of principle that we should take human life in self defense only. This may be individual self defense, or collective as when our country is attacked by another. As far as animals are concerned, I just don't know. It is a different argument.

Risa

09-10-08, 04:43 PM

Answer to Risa.

Too many cases of miscarriage of justice have come to light in cases which carried, or would have carried, the death sentence. Only a short ago in England the Court of Appeal ruled that the conviction of Barry George for murdering the TV presenter Jill Dando was unsafe and ordered a retrial. In the retrial he was acquitted.

There are many other cases--that we know of-- of people who eventually were released but whose lives had been wrecked beyond repair. I think there are quite a few similar examples in the US. The plain fact is that the police and criminal justice system is too unreliable.

I have always disliked this particular arguement because while it protects the few that were convicted wrongly, it keeps all the truly guilty ones alive. Yes some people are convicted wrongly and are executed before this is found out. But there are plenty who will tell everyone who would listen that they did it. Evidence can prove they did it. If we stop executing people because we are afraid a few innocent will be executed, then all the murderers, rapists, sadists and terrorists get off easy and get to live.

KingofCretins

09-10-08, 08:11 PM

I'm a big believer that it really is better to let 1000 guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be made to suffer.

I'm also a big fan of a quote of Henry David Thoreau -- "When will the world learn that a million men are of no importance compared with one man?"

Michael

09-10-08, 08:22 PM

Protecting the innocent is the first priority,IMO.

If an innocent man goes to jail there is a double injustice: the wrong men is punished, and the guilty man is free to commit more crimes.

Sir Robert Mark, a former Scotland Yard Commissioner, came to the conclusion that the death penalty led to some murderers being acquitted because juries did not think the death penalty was fair in the circumstances.

Apart from capital crimes there have been some notorious cases in Britain and the US of innocent people being penalized for child abuse on the basis of bogus "buried memories" brought by hypnotists, or children being led and manipulated by fanatical and unscrupulous social workers.

In the movies and TV dramas you often have the scene in which the cop says to some suspect: "If you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to worry about."

I feel like shouting at the screen, "You have everything to worry about! Don 't say a word without a lawyer."

EvilVampire

10-10-08, 01:07 AM

Ok then, "I demand that that rascal who stole my purse gets thrown in the slammer!" :)
I was more thinking along the lines of "I demand that the man who raped and killed my daughter be thrown in jail for the rest of his life"; or "I demand that the dictator who tortured and murdered 30000 people be put in prison without the comforts of house arrest", etc. :)

Incidentally, how would you answer the questions you're asking me? :1poke:

For instance, in this thread, we can find examples, where people are saying that some people (murderers and/or others) deserve to be killed, and support the DP on those grounds.

And another question for you: :1poke: how would you reward the wonderful leaders of the UAE and KSA? ;)

But to consider the case you present, I don't think I'd likely be angry, either. It depends on the case as always, but let's say she's walking back home, and all of a sudden (as it's common in these cases) someone grabs her purse and runs away. Getting one's stuff stolen usually leaves people pretty traumatized, and she's reacting in a way that's only to be expected.

I might say (if it's someone I know and I think talking is appropriate; as always, details are essential) something like, "I hope they catch him, but you know how this is: they're almost never caught, and when they are, they're in jail for like a day, then released to commit more crimes; the important thing is that you're ok, you weren't hurt (if she wasn't), etc."

Agreed. Though I think for many people the urge to have someone locked up is also because they're afraid of that person and don't want them roaming the streets - even if this fear is irrational (eg someone who murders their wife won't necessarily go out and murder some stranger in the street, because the motives behind killing a particular person don't necessarily make you want to kill many people. It might just be that one person. Unless you murdered your wife because the devil told you to do it, and to buy yourself some pretty knives to spread his death gift to the world of course...).

That's another motivation, I agree. But even without that motivation, people often do seek retribution.

Aha, but inside this weak and feeble liberal body lies the heart and stomach of an Old Testament God. :D
Lol :lol:

By the way, I find the New Testament one just as bad, but seriously, if you were looking for something I'd find offensive, you may have just bumped into it. :)

If someone told me, "I hope the person who did this burns in Hell forever", even I would find that a bit disgusting. I will still understand that the person in question is probably traumatized and all; but even though calls for the slammer or even death won't usually cause much of an effect on me, eternal torment kinda does it (sure, there's no prospect that their hopes will come true, but they seem to believe otherwise).

But why would you ask for their reasons if you know that the reasons aren't what matters? As in, the reasons aren't real reasons but ways of justifying the gut reaction?
Different reasons, such as:

1) Perhaps, those reasons actually have something to do with it: their giving reasons for their reaction can be seen as speculation about what is it about the conduct in question that caused their reaction in the first place.
Their speculation may not be completely wrong (e.g., if A says she wants B punished because B is a serial killer and she think serial killers deserve to be fried, that may be true), and in any case, I may be interested in knowing why they believe reacted the way they reacted.

2) Those reasons sometimes can be used to persuade them to change their mind, if they can be undermined. :eviltail:

Would you, perhaps, be tempted to put them in a room and do experiments..? :D
Do you have a plan? Have you picked a target yet? :eviltail:

In the world of Great Apes, chimps have speech and articulated ethical codes, and talk about "Chimpunity" (or...actually I can't remember how they spell it, but their version of humanity) in the abstract. So, he's essentially translating human concepts of morality into a system that would better fit the way real chimps behave (eg their sexual openness).
Sounds interesting, though (nitpicking here :D) those beings would not be chimpanzees (just like we're not Australopithecus).

So, relating that back to humanity, lets say (for the sake of argument, not because I've studied the topic and come to this conclusion) human beings have certain "moral" inclinations as part of their biological inheritence - or rather, tendencies that they've come to group as part of morality. I suppose you could interpret those tendencies in any number of ways - as evidence that God made us in His rather cross and punitive image, as evidence that certain "moral" inclinations are what's best for human beings from a pragmatic point of view, given that these inclinations are what have allowed us to survive, or as indications of nothing other than the chances of biology, to be ignored in favour of other ways of discovering our morality.

The "God" interpretation is unclear...what's a god? ;)

You raised good points, though I'm not sure why you say "moral" instead of moral...

I think we need to distinguish how some behavior has come to exist (ultimately, what we are results from our genes and our environment, and our genes resulted from the evolutionary process), and the truth (or whatever) of our judgments when we engage in that behavior.

Side note:
A person's moral behavior, like eating behavior, color vision, sexual behavior, or mathematical behavior, are the result of genes plus environmental factors, etc, and genes resulted from evolution (as an adaptation or spandrel). When we talk not about a person but the species, we can say that color vision is the result of the evolutionary process (overlooking perhaps environmental factors since pretty much everyone has color vision), but semantical shorthands aside, in any case, and from the perspective of science, there's no "big mystery" about where we come from (unless, perhaps, you go back to the Big Bang or something, but I'm talking about the period after life on Earth begin), though a lot of questions about the precise way in which many processes occurred or ocur.

We're not going to look into genetics, evolution or environmental factors that resulted in our development when we try to solve an equation, or choose the most tasty food or, err., the hottest available partner :eviltail: (though someone might try that, at least in some cases).

In other words, we're not going to moralize making references to evolution any more than we're going to solve equations making references to it.

That said, there's also the issue of whether moral behavior in humans is an evolutionary adaptation, or spandrel, or whether what we call "moral behavior" is the result of not one by several traits resulting from different adaptations, etc., are all interesting matters for science to study, in my view.