The least cruel method of execution?

Everyone who disagrees with Joe is a fool.

Supporters of "humane executions," on the other hand, are hypocrites.

Craven de Kere wrote:

One can easily wish to use the death penalty as a deterrent while wishing to avoid barbarism.

Then they would wish for half-measures.

And you attempt to support your position through mere repetition of an unsupported claim.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Balance in all things Joe, people can reasonably wish to use less barbaric methods of execution while still considering it a deterrent.

Then they would be fools.

Prison is already quite inhumane. Besides, incarceration can be justified for the rehabilitative function that it serves. The death penalty, in contrast, has no rehabilitative function. Therefore, people can support humane prisons and not be hypocrites. Supporters of "humane executions," on the other hand, are hypocrites.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Most people who support the death penalty do not wish for such barbarism, and they are perfectly willing for death to be its own deterrent without resporting to absurd extremities in barbarism.

Then they are fooling themselves.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Assume one is willing for their society to go to ANY length to deter crime. Now also assume that they wish that barbarism in any form be a crime.

Really, this is the best you can do? Murder is a crime, yet capital punishment is not. I'm sure that if "barbarity" were outlawed tomorrow, "legalized barbarity" could still exist in some state-sanctioned form.

Craven de Kere wrote:

It does not make them a hypocrite to not wish to commit a crime to deter a crime. This simplistic approach will be faced with many such paradoxes.

No, only your simplistic approach invites such putative paradoxes.

Quote:

Supporters of "humane executions," on the other hand, are hypocrites.

Actually, I agree with this statement to a certain extent. It's one of the reasons I oppose the death penalty. It's also a hypocrisy that I think is an indicator of a certain amount of humanity.

(Anyway, show me a man who's not a hypocrite...)

That's one way to put it. Another would be that they simply do not occupy the absolute extreme of the spectrum that you insist is the only tenable position free from hypocrisy for anyone who views the death penalty as a deterrent.

I've supported it. Perhaps not too your liking but earlier you accused Scrat of not seeing the arguments because he didn't accept them so this is a bit of irony.

LOL, so anyone who has a goal must be willing to accept any means or they are fools and hypocrites.

First of all, I don't support the death penalty. So I need no convincing as to the merit of capital punishment.

What you suggest is that unless their support for capital punishment also includes support for barbarism their position is hypocritical.

If someone has, as their goal zero population growth are they hypocrites if they do not amputate their genitals?

Does every stated goal require the most cartoonishly extreme implementation to avoid accusation of folly and hypocrisy?

Cruel and unusual punishment is a crime. Capital punishment is not.

Note that I did not take the most extreme position possible and declare that anyone who is slightly inclined to it must support barbarism or be a fool and a hypocrite.

You claim that if one wants to deter crime through capital punishment they must be willing to condone the crime of cruel and unusual punishment.

I disagree that there is no worse punishment than death.

I can think of a bunch.

Craven de Kere wrote:

That's one way to put it. Another would be that they simply do not occupy the absolute extreme of the spectrum that you insist is the only tenable position free from hypocrisy for anyone who views the death penalty as a deterrent.

You misunderstand, Craven: death penalty advocates already occupy the extreme position. They can't go any farther in the spectrum of punishment -- they're already there.

Craven de Kere wrote:

LOL, so anyone who has a goal must be willing to accept any means or they are fools and hypocrites.

Well done! An excellent example of a strawman argument! I suggest the younger readers take note.

What I'm saying is that people who support capital punishment do so for two major reasons: deterrence and retribution. Yet "humane" forms of execution are directly contrary to those goals.

Consequently, anyone who supports "humane executions" is advocating semi-deterrent deterrence and semi-retributive retribution. That's an inconsistent position, and, I would conclude, that's hypocritical.

Craven de Kere wrote:

If someone has, as their goal zero population growth are they hypocrites if they do not amputate their genitals?

No. Your analogy is ludicrous. There are many different ways to reach the goal of zero population growth without resorting to self-mutilation.

In contrast, there is no other way to effect the twin goals of deterrence and retribution through means of capital punishment except through the act of execution itself. In other words, if the execution is not deterrent or retributive, it is unjustifiable.

Thus, anyone who argues for an ineffective or less effective form of execution, but who still favors capital punishment, is holding inconsistent positions, and, I would conclude, is a hypocrite.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Does every stated goal require the most cartoonishly extreme implementation to avoid accusation of folly and hypocrisy?

Beat that strawman, Craven, kill him dead!

Craven de Kere wrote:

Cruel and unusual punishment is a crime. Capital punishment is not.

Which is why I have noted that death penalty advocates should be calling for the repeal of the Eighth Amendment, since it is the only thing preventing the implementation of a truly consistent system of capital punishment.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Note that I did not take the most extreme position possible and declare that anyone who is slightly inclined to it must support barbarism or be a fool and a hypocrite.

I admire your self-restraint.

Craven de Kere wrote:

You claim that if one wants to deter crime through capital punishment they must be willing to condone the crime of cruel and unusual punishment.

No, they must be true to their beliefs and advocate a change in the constitution and the laws to permit the most cruel and painful executions possible. Anything less would be a betrayal of their convictions.

Craven de Kere wrote:

I've supported it. Perhaps not too your liking but earlier you accused Scrat of not seeing the arguments because he didn't accept them so this is a bit of irony.

No. Scrat was not seeing my arguments because Scrat was not reading my arguments.

Then why are you insisting that if they don't occupy a more extreme position in which the method of torture is barbaric they are hypocrites?

In short, if they "can't go any farther in the spectrum of punishment" how can you say they need to be more extreme? :wink:

You did not qualify the reason for your criteria, as such I will apply it to other similar scenarios unless you qualify it.

If you suggest that people are hypocrites merely on the basis of their not holding the most extreme position in their spectrum without qualifying why it should be for this case there is no reason not to apply it elsewhere.

People who want to buy a nice house but do not buy the most expensive house that exists are acting contrary to their goal.

You are eliminating middle ground with no valid reason and positing a lunatic fringe as their only tenable position.

"Those who support the war on terror but do not approve the use of nuclear bombs to kill all Arabs are 'semi-against' terror".

This is precisely why the analogy is fitting, there are many ways for the death penalty to serve as a form of a deterrent (though imperfect) without resorting to barbarism.

I do not consider the death penalty sufficient a deterrent to be worth its use but to those who do, telling them that they need to add barbarism to executions to make it more of a deterrent is absurd.

Police serve as a deterrent too, should not police brutalize any thugs in order to better deter?

You speak in absolute terms, if it's not barbaric it's not a deterrent. This is simply not true. Execution is made a more fearsome deterrent through barbaric means but it is still a feared punishment without it.

So it's not a choice of no deterrent versus a deterrent but rather the degree to which it serves as a deterrent.

More play time:

Ok, so since there is no other way to effect the twin goals of deterrence and retribution through means of corporal punishment except through the act of corporal punishment itself the corporal punishment must be barbaric or it is unjustifiable.

Beat the baby with a 2 by 4! None of this namby-pamby hypocritical palm crap!

More play time:

Thusly anyone who argues for less brutal punishment at all can be construed as arguing for less effective punishment and is a hypocrite.

If you think a 2 year stint in the can is a deterrent you are inconsistent and hypocritical for not wanting, say, 300 years! That's a way better deterrent!

And again you posit no reasonable argument for this. Merely repeating that if the spankings are supposed to be a deterrent why not beat and violate?

Anyone who supports the right to administer corporal punishment should, by your twisted logic, be advocating the end of any law forbidding more barbaric, and better deterring, beatings and brutalizings.

More logical inconsitencies with Joe's argument

These semantical forensic squabbles are lately the most tiresome reading in the forum.

Why don't you fellows bring your arguments to a topical case, such as:

Why didn't the death penalty deter John Muhammad?

Who/what is to be deterred by Muhammad's condemnation?

And since Muhammad wasn't actually the one pulling the trigger, do your same rationale apply to John Lee Malvo? If so, why and if not, why not?

(It would be interesting to see some who favor capital punishment weigh in as well...)

"Let Him Dangle" - Elvis Costello

Bentley said to Craig "Let him have it Chris"
(They still don't know today just what he meant by this)
Craig fired the pistol, but was too young to swing
So the police took Bentley and the very next thing
Let him dangle
Let him dangle

Bentley had surrendered, he was under arrest,
when he gave Chris Craig that fatal request
Craig shot Sidney Miles, he took Bentley's word...
The prosecution claimed as they charged them with murder
Let him dangle
Let him dangle

They say Derek Bentley was easily led
Well what's that to the woman that Sidney Miles wed?
Though guilty was the verdict, and Craig had shot him dead
The gallows were for Bentley and still she never said
"Let him dangle"
Let him dangle

Well it's hard to imagine it's the times that have changed
When there's a murder in the kitchen that is brutal and strange
If killing anybody is a terrible crime
Why does this bloodthirsty chorus come round from time to time
"Let him dangle"

Not many people thought that Bentley would hang
But the word never came, the phone never rang
Outside Wandsworth Prison there was horror and hate
As the hangman shook Bentley's hand to calculate his weight
Let him dangle

From a welfare state to society murder
"Bring back the noose" is always heard
Whenever those swine are under attack
But it won't make you even
It won't bring him back

Let him dangle
Let him dangle (String him up)

No, sweetcheeks, I read your arguments and simply found them to be lacking. It is actually possible to understand your point of view and differ from it.