Based on my biased perception the only living case I can think of other than extreme serial brutality would have to be the Bernie Madoffs of the world.
The amount of value that was taken from people's lifes was astronomical - tenets of death penalty is almost impossible to conclude. People value life mostly based on there position amongst others. I would have to say that the best way to determine something of this would be a voted mavens for each social class and/or ethnic minority.
From an economic perspective the amount of destruction that was done to the American people by 1 person (Madoff)was amazing. He's like the Steve Jobs of destruction.
To delineate damage based on "physical" damage is mainly a lack of understanding and *wrong* because it ignores the macro effects of decisions and psychopathologies.
I think the death penalty should not be an option *because* some people are less afraid of losing there lives and can often have untreated mental illness - explaining there prolific actions.
I agree that the sanctity of life is something which is a paramount freedom for Americans. In other countries this is not true.
BTW you are speaking from a socialist country (I side with gramsci, marx, hegel etc) but in America your rules don't apply - although, we are slowly getting there thank god.
I really think that the death penalty is justified in the case of baby rapes that happened over here in South Africa.
In Tanzania there is belief if you kill an albino you will be blessed with great fortune in life.They cut off and use the limbs of these children as a sort of lucky charm
That's barbaric to think about.
To know that a lot of the world thinks in terms of that nature is *very* scary to me.
It amazes me how malleable the world and ethics are to many around the world.
Death penalty would be a deterrent to actions of this nature.
Death penalty though falls short in addressing actions of this nature.
Perspective really is influencable. Reminds me of Hannah Arendt and diffusion of responsibility.
- Any system of justice invented would be instituted by humans
- Humans are fallible
- Therefore virtually any guilty verdict derived from such a system is subject to errorIt's never OK, in my mind, to purposefully execute someone based on a system I know to be flawed; which can't be escaped.
[INDENT]If one is to say it is undesirable to kill an innocent human, than why is it any more ethically permissible to let someone rot in a cell for the rest of their biological life because of a miscarriage of justice? Is it because there is the potential to rectify the situation if further evidence substantiates innocence? Is not being incarcerated for a long period of time falsely accused of a crime, as your life crumbles away, more cruel than death? Imagine the torment you would get from inmates if you were accused with a sexual offence of a minor. Is that humane?
While the language of "rotting away" signifies a life so difficult and mentally erosive; in actually, people adapt to nearly any environment aside from significant isolation. It is a *fallacy* to assume that a person would necessarily be happier in a less restrictive less structured environment.
I would however agree that the potentiality for happiness would be a limiting factor. I have read research that people tend to adapt/grow to be happy in any environment as long as quintessential ingredients are present (social, nutritional, routine etc).
My point is that a man generally creates a philosphy which is congruent to his circumstances. This philosophy doesn't have to be malevolent.
*Many* have been very creative under such circumstances/solitude.
I hope your right. I'm sure people hate the military to. Human exerience over time can adapt to find happiness and often does. Many in american prisons live much better than those in other parts of the world. You think that all the others in there are under different circumstances and never learn to assimilate/adapt - Wrong.
Very interesting post Khethil, but I note what appears to be erroneous reasoning with the implications of your syllogistic argumentation from my perspective.
If one is to say it is undesirable to kill an innocent human, than why is it any more ethically permissible to let someone rot in a cell for the rest of their biological life because of a miscarriage of justice? Is it because there is the potential to rectify the situation if further evidence substantiates innocence? Is not being incarcerated for a long period of time falsely accused of a crime, as your life crumbles away, more cruel than death? Imagine the torment you would get from inmates if you were accused with a sexual offence of a minor. Is that humane?
If you merely do not like the absolute nature of terminating a life based on the potential it could be a miscarriage of justice (as the system is faulted), why sanction any criminal? Court proceedings have a burden of proof that the prosecution has to prove and that is that. Pragmatically, that is just how things go. I do not see that part of your argument convincing in the slightest - but I am open to any further discourse ;-)
If I could read your post and comprehend what I read, I would respond with something more. What did I say that wasn't true?