The least cruel method of execution?

joefromchicago wrote:

Scrat wrote:
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.

Why sugarbutt, I had no idea you felt this way about me! A great big "ditto" right back at ya', monkeypuss!

I'm feeling all warm and fuzzy. Very Happy

0 Replies

Every time I come into this thread, the same thing flashes through my mind -- a thought about the motion picture "Escape from New York."

Society simply cannot allow people who murder other people to walk the streets.

So getting killers (and other kinds of capital felons) off the streets is a prime reason for the kinds of things we are discussing here.

I am not an advocate of capital punishment -- I simply am not an opponent. And, as I have mentioned twice now, I feel execution is more humane than life in prison without the possibility of parole. (That latter, is also very, very dangerous for the people entrusted with responsibility for guarding prisoners.)

If a set up like the "Escape from New York" scenario could be arranged where people convicted of capital crimes could be exiled (sans guards) -- I'd have no problem with that as an alternative to execution.

With a bit of ingenuity, the structure of that kind of alternative could be made reasonable -- although I doubt existence, even with the freedom such an arrangement would permit, would be especially attractive.

And lots good can be said about keeping hardened criminals in with people who might be redeemed in some way.

0 Replies

At this point, i would just like to point out something which struck me many years ago, and which i still consider a cogent take on this topic. In Beyond Good and Evil, ol' Freddy Neitzche points out that criminals do not undertake criminal activities in the belief that they will be apprehended. Imagine, if you will, the armed robber heading for the gas station who says to himself: "I'm gonna shoot the sonuvabitch if he don't hand over the cash pronto . . . but, hey, wait, i'm an incompetent idiot and will very likely get caught, then i'll be executed--hell, i'm goin' back home, i'll look for a low wage, unskilled job in the morning."

The notion of the death penalty as deterrant is absurd, and would be laughably so, were it not for the lack of humor in the situation for any of those involved. Either a murder is committed in passion, in which case, there is likely no consideration of consequences; or, it is an act of someone who believes they will escape any retribution.

0 Replies

Set - Good comments re. Freddy. Again, I do believe that the threat of punishment does deter some crimes, but that's where we differ. Where I think we agree is on the notion that people who commit crimes aren't planning on getting caught. What I believe they are doing is making what they believe is a rational economic choice based on the information they have (with some influence from their personal morals or ethics).

The threat of punishment as a deterrence is meant to raise the perceived opportunity cost of crime high enough that other legal pursuits will appear to be a better value for the individual to pursue. If we assume for the sake of discussion that deterrence doesn't work well enough, can you suggest alternative methods for making crime seem less attractive and legal means moreso?

0 Replies

I've said all of my adult life that crime does not pay because of the calibre of those who go into the profession. You're not gonna like this one bit--fleece the fat cats who have been looting the national coffers with subsidies and fat government contracts, and use the money to create real educational opportunity rather than the unfunded mandate sham of the "no child left behind" program.

Your hypothesis rests upon an assumption that those who choose crime as a profession actually give due consideration to consequences and returns.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Your hypothesis rests upon an assumption that those who choose crime as a profession actually give due consideration to consequences and returns.

Yes, it assumes we are dealing with rational beings, since there's not much we can do about those who are not rational. I suspect that a lot of people who choose crime are not failing to act rationally, but are in fact simply aware that we have made crime too attractive to pass up in a lot of ways.

Violent crime in Orange County, CA is considerably lower than in the counties surrounding it. Orange County happens to be the only county in the area which allows its citizens to carry concealed weapons. I draw two conclusions from this information:

1) Some criminals are in fact making rational choices.

2) Creating a perceptible threat of armed self-defense is just one way to raise the perceived opportunity cost of crime and lower the rate at which individuals choose criminal behavior.

0 Replies

I don't know the provenance of your contention about crime rates in that county in a state far from where i live, and which i never expect to visit. I will posit its accuracy for sake of the discussion. I would offer the suggestion that most people with whom one deals are less than rational a significant amount of their lives. I would also suggest that such a statement at least occassionally applies to you and to me. I would also point out that someone who wishes to seek economic opportunity in strong-arm or armed robbery might be pretty damned stupid or ill-educated, and still make a reasonable judgment about the likely consequences of trying that with someone who might have a gun in their pocket. They don't necessarily, however, look at a passing police car and think to themselves: "There's a lethal injection at the end of a long chain of causality driving by right now."

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I don't know the provenance of your contention about crime rates in that county in a state far from where i live, and which i never expect to visit. I will posit its accuracy for sake of the discussion. I would offer the suggestion that most people with whom one deals are less than rational a significant amount of their lives. I would also suggest that such a statement at least occassionally applies to you and to me. I would also point out that someone who wishes to seek economic opportunity in strong-arm or armed robbery might be pretty damned stupid or ill-educated, and still make a reasonable judgment about the likely consequences of trying that with someone who might have a gun in their pocket. They don't necessarily, however, look at a passing police car and think to themselves: "There's a lethal injection at the end of a long chain of causality driving by right now."

I think we agree about the minimal deterrent value of the death penalty. I am inclined to believe that the problem there is that the penalty is neither imminent nor likely. People know that if they are caught, prosecuted and convicted a death penalty is probably at least a dozen years away and may not be carried out at all. I would therefor suggest that those for whom it is not a deterrent have already accepted the possibility of a lengthy prison stay--we've filtered out those for whom prison itself is a deterrent and the distant, indefinite threat of a lethal injection simply fails to factor into their thinking. For that matter, if you are already willing to risk spending your life in prison, how much harder would it be to accept that said life will be limited to 10 or 12 years?

I believe the crime rate in Orange County is lower than in counties around it because criminals know they might face having a death penalty carried out against them during the commission of the crime. That immediate threat raises the opportunity cost of the crime to a point where it fails to be an attractive option to most criminals.

For the death penalty to have real deterrent value it must be a real, imminent threat, which is another reason I don't think we should use it. If we executed people within a year of conviction, there might be a measurable deterrent effect, but we would also be far more likely to execute innocent people. That's not a trade off I'm willing to make.

In the end, I think the best way to deter crime would be to lower the perceived opportunity cost of living within the law. There is a point where we can only do so much with the threat of punishment to raise the opportunity cost of crime, after which (or along with which) we need to be looking at ways to make not committing crime a more attractive option for those on the fence.

0 Replies

PDiddie wrote:

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...)

One man's meat is another man's poison. I'll cut it short soon.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

I think we agree about the minimal deterrent value of the death penalty. I am inclined to believe that the problem there is that the penalty is neither imminent nor likely. People know that if they are caught, prosecuted and convicted a death penalty is probably at least a dozen years away and may not be carried out at all. I would therefor suggest that those for whom it is not a deterrent have already accepted the possibility of a lengthy prison stay--we've filtered out those for whom prison itself is a deterrent and the distant, indefinite threat of a lethal injection simply fails to factor into their thinking. For that matter, if you are already willing to risk spending your life in prison, how much harder would it be to accept that said life will be limited to 10 or 12 years?

I am inclined not to agree with your assessment about the deterrent value of the death penalty. You assume a far greater process of rational consideration on the part of those who would murder than i have posited since i entered this discussion. You speak of what people know about a possible execution as you speak about so much in these fora--as though it were a statement from authority. I would counter that you cannot know what the people in question know or believe about the possibility of being convicted and sentenced to execution. I have already speculated that those who commit murder are not concerned with the possibility of being executed for the crime. I have given my opinion, long held, that crime does not pay because of the calibre of the those who take up the profession. I have also mentioned those crimes considered to be crimes of passion, in which it would reasonable to infer that no thought process intervened between anger and deed. I would add those who murder from pathology, either unaware of distinctions between right and wrong, or unconcerned with such distinctions as their object is to gratify a pathological desire; some may even welcome the possibility of death as an end to their acting out of a pathological compulsion which they abhor but cannot resist. There are a variety of reasons why someone who murders may either not consider the consequence of execution, or not be concerned with it. My original point of departure was Neitzsche's well argued point that those who act with criminal intent do not do so in the belief that they will be apprehended. When, in an earlier post, you stated that: "Yes, it assumes we are dealing with rational beings, since there's not much we can do about those who are not rational. I suspect that a lot of people who choose crime are not failing to act rationally, but are in fact simply aware that we have made crime too attractive to pass up in a lot of ways."--you were taking the ball and running with it, as though we were engaged in a game of American football, when i was in fact playing soccer--i was just kicking around an idea, a game in which picking up the ball and running with it is against the rules. You are building up an ideological screed here. I made a contention earlier that most people don't act from a rational basis most of the time, and even suggested (which suggestion i stand by) that neither you nor i act from a rational basis in all situations. From such a point of view, a contention that someone would murder with a sense of impunity based upon a belief that they would suffer nothing more than a dozen years of incarceration before exhausting appeals against a death sentence, and a calculated expectation of beating the sentence altogether both assumes a rational process which my speculation denies takes place, as well as imputing to the accused criminal an ideological assessment of the state of crime and punishment in this nation which is hardly commensurate with the behavior of "thoughtless fellows."

Quote:

I believe the crime rate in Orange County is lower than in counties around it because criminals know they might face having a death penalty carried out against them during the commission of the crime. That immediate threat raises the opportunity cost of the crime to a point where it fails to be an attractive option to most criminals.

This is what i mean by building up an ideological screed. When first you appeared in these fora, you and i exchanged a series of PM's in which the subject of the national election results in Florida in 2000 arose, and you made a series of statements from authority (i.e., without citation) to the effect that the results of the election as tabulated were accurate, and that the polling had been conducted fairly. I chose not to engage in a protracted debate by PM on the subject, and simply stopped replying to you. You are doing here what you did in those PM's. I only accepted your statement about the crime rate in Orange County for sake of discussion, after pointing out that i had no knowledge of the provenance of your statement. Without citation, without demonstration, such a contention constitutes a statement from authority. Such statements are ordinarily unacceptable in a debate, unless offered as opinion--an offer which you have not made. The topic here is the relative cruelty of methods of execution. My remarks did not address that directly, but rather, are concerned with the expectation of apprehension by those subject to such a judgment at the time of committing the crime for which they are condemned. I considered it germaine to introduce the topic after reading Joe's posts about the severity of the punishment as an expectation of those seeking vengeance by means of the death penalty. This is a topic which Neitzsche discusses at lenghth in Beyond Good and Evil, which reminded me of his dictum that the criminal acts in a criminal manner in the expectation of not being apprehended for the crime. For you to state without substantiation that a concealed carry ordinance has resulted in a significant reduction in the rate of criminal activity, and proceed from there as though such putative, unproven reduction in the rate of crime were demonstrably the result of said ordinance is a rather dubious forensic technique at best. It is a common one, but feeble if your interlocutor is paying attention. Nothing in what i wrote supports such a contention--your decision to agree with me on a single, discreet point of the ineffectiveness of the purported deterrant effect of the death penalty is not reason for a suggestion that i either agree as to reason for said ineffectiveness, nor that i agree with nor could be convinced that such an ordinance would have or has had the effect of crime reduction. I have seen you use this technique before, and people often become angered, and accuse you of twisting their statements. Actually, i don't see this as twisting my statements, but rather as using them as an ideological springboard, when the statement is about human nature, and not ideology. I consider it a weak rhetorical device, and one which will be quicily spotted by the sharp minded reader, and eventually apparent to those with ordinary reading comprehension skills. Formulae involving "opportunity cost" and "attractive option to most criminals" are completely at odds with what i have speculated, which, once again, is that criminal acts are by and large thoughtless endeavors.

Quote:

For the death penalty to have real deterrent value it must be a real, imminent threat, which is another reason I don't think we should use it. If we executed people within a year of conviction, there might be a measurable deterrent effect, but we would also be far more likely to execute innocent people. That's not a trade off I'm willing to make.

Whereas i agree that it would appalling to consider the likelihood of executing the innocent, there is nothing else here with which i can agree. My small thesis here does not admit of the contemplation of cause and effect, of consideration of consequences. In such cases, there is no deterrant effect in the death penalty, because if forms no part in the consideration of the criminal. In fact, i am positing that the most of people engaging in criminal activity are either making no consideration with regard to consequences, or are proceeding on an assumption that they will suffer no consequences, regardless of the nature and method of their crime, because their expectation is that they will not be caught.

Quote:

In the end, I think the best way to deter crime would be to lower the perceived opportunity cost of living within the law. There is a point where we can only do so much with the threat of punishment to raise the opportunity cost of crime, after which (or along with which) we need to be looking at ways to make not committing crime a more attractive option for those on the fence.

I rather doubt that there is any significant number of people "on the fence" with regard to crime, apart from young people when first presented with an occassion upon which they might engage in an activity which they know to be criminal. As i've already mentioned, your thesis about "perceived opportunity costs" has, in my estimation, little relation to the reasons people adduce for their activities. I doubt very much whether most people give conscious consideration to a weighing of probable consequences of their actions before they act. I further believe that even the most "rational" among us often act without conscious consideration, and would not be prepared to believe anyone who would contend to me that every action they take has been carefully weighed before the fact. Some few of us may do so most of the time.

It seems to me, in fact, that in this attempt of yours to digress into an ideological assessment of crime and punishment, there is little indeed upon which we do agree.

0 Replies

Logical?
Most people agree that the Death Penality is not a detterent. Most people agree that revenge or retribution is wrong. Many people agree that innocent or not guilty people have been on Death Row. Many people agree that there is no non cruel means of execution. It follows that the Death Penality should be abolished.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Ah, Craven, I can just imagine you, sitting at your computer keyboard, not merely smiling quietly, nor even chuckling softly to yourself, but literally laughing out loud!

You have a very vivid imagination. Laughing

Quote:

But I'm sorry to report that I have no interest in serving merely as an object of fun for you. If you want to treat this as a joke, then, I'll have to respectfully decline any further participation.

LOL, Joe, you joke all the time, you did a masturbation one about me, and then there's the whole "emulating Maliagar" thing.

I will have to decline an exchange devoid of humor.

Quote:

Bi-Polar Bear and Frank have, I think, correctly pointed out that, to some people, there are punishments far worse than death. My imagination is not that good, so I'll just take their word for it. But death penalty proponents certainly believe that capital punishment is the worst punishment possible.

Really? I know quite a few who do not consider death the worst punishment.

Quote:

If they were true to their convictions, I suppose they should be lobbying for the return of torture.

Not if their convictions preclude torture. You simplified a bit too much there. Convictions are not as unitary as you would portray them.

Quote:

You misunderstand my position. Capital punishment is unique, in that it serves only two possible purposes: deterrence and retribution.

I disagree. I do not think capital punishment serves only two possible purposes any more than I think spanking a child does. But I will not push this point.

Quote:

Indeed, if it served neither purpose, it would be murder.

Murder can serve the purposes of deterrence and retribution as well. I've always considered murder a legal distinction. But this is also a quibble not worth pursuing.

Quote:

So capital punishment is, in effect, sui generis, and it is certainly not logically inconsistent to treat unique cases as unique cases.

Through the above you have not illustrated sui generis, but I am willing to cede that capital punishment is unique for other reasons (not the least of which include time constraints).

Quote:

Your attempts at devising analogies, then, are doomed to failure as long as you continue to cite cases that are completely dis-analogous.

My analogies were a direct reference to your claim that if one states something as a goal (in your case deterrence of crime through capital punishment) they must act in no way that can possibly work against that goal or be a hypocrite. It has nothing to do with the perceived uniqueness of capital punishment and everything to do with the notion you propose in which deterrence is a singular goal. That is simply not the case and the analogies all stand.

You assume that those who support capital punishment have as their only goal the deterrence of crime. You do not consider that they may have other considerations. Spanking a child can be construed as being about "deterrence and retribution" as well. Spanking a child more brutally can also be argued to better deter and 're-tribute'. Yet those who support corporal punishment have other considerations as well. Some involve not wanting to beat a child.

Likewise those who support the death penalty do not have deterrence of crime as their sole consideration. The situations are analogous in that in both situations a stated goal can have its means moderated due to other considerations. The analogies have no relation to the perceived uniqueness of capital punishment.

You said that if someone wishes to use capital punishment as a deterrent they must make it barbaric in order for it to serve as a better deterrent. Your approach to the issue was simplistic, denying any other conflicting goals.

For example, if one supports the death penalty as a deterrent but also supports the laws forbidding cruel and unusual punishment their goal is not to simply make the capital punishment the greatest deterrent possible. It is to make it a deterrent that fits within their other goals. If one of their goals is a society free of barbarism suggesting that they should accept barbarism for the goal of deterrence (which you isolate) or be a hypocrite is to suggest that they do not have any conflicting criteria. Now the conflicting criteria in itself might be cause to allege hypocrisy but only if the notion that capital punishment is already barbaric is accepted.

I accept that notion. But that is the very question of most capital punishment debates and you base your claim that they need to go full monty with the barbarism as if this were a given.

Quote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
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.

Really? How so?

Explain how the barbarism would serve as a deterrent. The execution without the barbarism will do so in the same manner to an arguably lesser degree.

Quote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
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.

In what way?

Because it would only make sense if they had a singular goal, to deter crime. They could easily have goals that include crime deterrence and the lack of barbarism in society.

And it only makes sense if said barbarism is not a crime.

As neither is the case it is absurd.

Quote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
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.

If capital punishment is intended to be a feared punishment (indeed, the entire deterrence rationale is built upon its being fear-inducing), then why make it less fearful by making executions more "humane"?

Because deterring crime is not the only goal that exists.

Because the barbarism you advocate for them is itself a crime and this would contradict the goal of deterring crime.

Quote:

Really, Craven, I have no interest in what you may be doing with your palm as you sit at your computer.

As an aside, since you created this situation in your mind you have at least that much interest in it.

Quote:

What you cite is, at most, a prudential dilemma, not a logical inconsistency. If you'd like, I can recommend some introductory primers on logic, so that in the future you won't confuse the two again.

Incorrect. I cited a prudential dilemma on the part of the individuals who support the death penalty.

I cite logical inconsistency on your part. It is you who have confused the two.

The prudential dilemma I reference is one that would make it advisable for those who support the death penalty as a deterrent to avoid the cartoonish fringe you advocate for them.

I illustrated that those who think that capital punishment is a deterrent must compromise about the severity and scope of said punishment for it to be employed at all.

Therefore your claim that they are hypocritical is logically inconsistent with their prudential dilemma (among other things).

0 Replies

Re: Logical?

pistoff wrote:

Most people agree that the Death Penality is not a detterent. Most people agree that revenge or retribution is wrong. ...

Do you have numbers to back up those "mosts", or are we just supposed to take your word for it? Confused

You seem to have a nasty habit of assuming that most people agree with you. (They may in fact, but just writing it doesn't mean anything unless you can cite some evidence that it is in fact a fact.)

Some people think those things, but I would frankly be surprised if "most" did. Most polling suggests the most people support the death penalty, and I happen to think human nature leads us to desire retribution (which is why our system of justice was designed to try to minimize or remove this desire from play in determining guilt, sentencing and meting out punishment).

0 Replies

I wonder what the percentage of getting away with murder is? I think the sheer enormity of 'real' crime that goes unpunished in this country is more of an incentive to engage in crime than the deterent of getting caught and going to prison. One need only look at corporate America to see that is true. Anyway, I think a lot of murderers think they are so smart that they won't get caught. Do driveby shooters ever get caught? I never hear that they do? But what about the ones that want to get caught and take out as many people as they can? No deterant there. Prisons don't deter crime and the death penalty doesn't deter murder anymore than saying 'no' prevents pregnancy.

I'm late to this conversation, but a while back you guys were talking about Gary Gillmore. I was a courtroom illustrator at his sentencing (oops I'm old). Gillmore challenged the system to execute him. The death penalty was on the law books, but had not been used for decades. Until Gillmore, murderers in Utah and the entire US for that matter got life sentences. He challenged the system to kill him and while it temporarily threw the system into a flux (they didn't want to), in the end Gillmore got his wish. Gillmore figured if the system was going to have these laws they may as well use them. He was the first to be executed in the US in decades. Since then, more and more states have gone execution crazy but none more so than Texas, which has broken all records.

Blank bullets may help ease the conscience of the firing squad, but what about the guy who gives the injections? Where's his conscience safeguard? Or the guy who flips the switch? Anyone see the 'Greenmile?' That movie had some good reasons against executions that are all too common in this country.

The death penalty in this country is misused, abused, overused and unfair in percentages to minorities. It should be abolished. Also, having the death penalty in one state and not in another is not equal justice under the law. As long justice can be bought, bartered and manipulated by those who can afford it, then justice is not blind and has no justification for killing people who can't afford a better defense.

Also consider that we may be entering into a new era of justice. Ashcroft justice. Now you too could be falsely accused and POOF! No rights, no trial, and no justice.

0 Replies

Loved the Gree Mile and read the book.
Stats? No. I just make this **** up as I go.

Quote:

death penalty in this country is misused, abused, overused and unfair in percentages to minorities. It should be abolished. Also, having the death penalty in one state and not in another is not equal justice under the law. As long justice can be bought, bartered and manipulated by those who can afford it, then justice is not blind and has no justification for killing people who can't afford a better defense.
Quote:

Agree 100%

0 Replies

Quote:

Stats? No. I just make this **** up as I go.

Stats? What specifically? I like to think I know a thing or two about a thing or two before I speak on a subject. But you know how facts are today. Sometimes they aren't really facts at all (ie: WMD)
So what are you saying about making **** up as you go? Do you?

0 Replies

Moot - Do they have the death penalty in your state?

0 Replies

Moot wrote:

Quote:
Stats? No. I just make this **** up as I go.

Stats? What specifically? I like to think I know a thing or two about a thing or two before I speak on a subject. But you know how facts are today. Sometimes they aren't really facts at all (ie: WMD)
So what are you saying about making **** up as you go? Do you?

Of course he does. When he writes that "most people think X", what he means is "I think X and I think most people agree with me".

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Really? I know quite a few who do not consider death the worst punishment.

We obviously do not share the same social circles.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Not if their convictions preclude torture. You simplified a bit too much there. Convictions are not as unitary as you would portray them.

If their convictions preclude cruel and painful executions but endorse capital punishment, they are inconsistent.

Craven de Kere wrote:

I disagree. I do not think capital punishment serves only two possible purposes any more than I think spanking a child does. But I will not push this point.

You are wise not to push the point, Craven, as it is indefensible.

Craven de Kere wrote:

My analogies were a direct reference to your claim that if one states something as a goal (in your case deterrence of crime through capital punishment) they must act in no way that can possibly work against that goal or be a hypocrite.

No, I claimed nothing about "something" as a goal, I only made a claim about employing capital punishment as a means to the twin goals of deterrence and retribution. Your attempts to fashion analogies that go well beyond the limited scope of my position is a textbook strategy for creating strawmen arguments.

Craven de Kere wrote:

You assume that those who support capital punishment have as their only goal the deterrence of crime.

I'm not sure why you'd willfully misrepresent my position in this way, and I'm completely baffled as to why you'd do it in this type of forum, where the contrary evidence is directly at hand. But, to refresh your memory, here is what I said about the goals of capital punishment (with emphasis added):

Post 454538: "...if we are really serious about the value of capital punishment as a means of deterrence and as a demonstration of the state's interest in justice."
Post 454831: "Proponents of the death penalty typically cite two rationales: (1) deterrence; and (2) retribution."
Post 455230: "What I'm saying is that people who support capital punishment do so for two major reasons: deterrence and retribution."
Post 456708: "Capital punishment is unique, in that it serves only two possible purposes: deterrence and retribution."

In short, I have never said, or assumed, that deterrence is the only goal of capital punishment. Once again, you're battling strawmen.

Craven de Kere wrote:

For example, if one supports the death penalty as a deterrent but also supports the laws forbidding cruel and unusual punishment their goal is not to simply make the capital punishment the greatest deterrent possible. It is to make it a deterrent that fits within their other goals.

Then their goals are inconsistent. As I said before, they want semi-deterrent deterrence and semi-retributive retribution.

Craven de Kere wrote:

If one of their goals is a society free of barbarism suggesting that they should accept barbarism for the goal of deterrence (which you isolate) or be a hypocrite is to suggest that they do not have any conflicting criteria. Now the conflicting criteria in itself might be cause to allege hypocrisy but only if the notion that capital punishment is already barbaric is accepted.

No, their conflicting criteria can lead them to hypocrisy even if we do not concede that capital punishment, in itself, is barbaric.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Explain how the barbarism would serve as a deterrent. The execution without the barbarism will do so in the same manner to an arguably lesser degree.

You do not give the proponents of capital punishment their due. They are the ones who argue that execution is a deterrent, they are the ones who think that the specter of death is enough to deter criminals. Yet they are the ones who, in the end, want the executions to be as "humane" as possible. Surely, though, if death deters, painful, cruel death deters more (especially if, as you have suggested, there are even worse punishments than death).

Craven de Kere wrote:

Because it would only make sense if they had a singular goal, to deter crime. They could easily have goals that include crime deterrence and the lack of barbarism in society.

Then their goals are inconsistent.

Craven de Kere wrote:

And it only makes sense if said barbarism is not a crime.

No. Because cruel and painful executions are currently outlawed, those who should (if they were true to their convictions) want such executions ought to try their best to repeal that prohibition. As I have said before, the fact that cruel and unusual punishments are outlawed under the Eighth Amendment is sufficient reason for proponents of capital punishment to advocate the repeal of that amendment.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Because deterring crime is not the only goal that exists.

I agree. Retribution is the other goal. But I'll be generous, Craven: since you've hinted at "other" goals served by capital punishment, without ever spelling them out, I'll let you get by with naming three.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Because the barbarism you advocate for them is itself a crime and this would contradict the goal of deterring crime.

It would not be a crime if the laws were rewritten. This is an inconsequential objection.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Incorrect. I cited a prudential dilemma on the part of the individuals who support the death penalty.

After re-reading this several times, and after seeing your explanation, I think I finally understand what you're trying to say.

And you're still wrong.

If a person is driven to a prudential dilemma, in part, because he holds inconsistent positions, it does not make him any less inconsistent. If death penalty proponents want capital punishment to be both deterrent and retributive, but they are under prudential constraints to favor a type of capital punishment that fulfills neither goal in a satisfactory manner, then the prudential consideration does not mitigate the inherent inconsistency of the position -- indeed, it merely highlights it.

To give an example: suppose a president favors fiscal restraint and budget surpluses, but, because of political considerations, is constrained to favor policies that lead to fiscal irresponsibility and massive budget deficits. We are, I think, entitled to say that such a president is inconsistent -- indeed, that such a president is a hypocrite -- even though his choices are driven by prudential considerations.

So there is no logical inconsistency in saying that people who favor a position, but who are constrained by prudential considerations to adopt a policy contrary to that position, are inconsistent, especially when they claim that the original position is consistent with the contrary policy. Your charge that I erred by committing a logical inconsistency, therefore, must fail.

But, as I mentioned before, I'm a fair guy, Craven: I'll give you one more chance to show that my argument is logically flawed. After that, though, I'm afraid I can do no more to assist in your education. You'll have to hit the books on your own.

0 Replies

Joe,

I normally consider your postings to be way above average -- and I seldom come away from a thread in which you participate without thinking that I have learned something -- no matter how small -- from what you have contributed.

But in this thread, you are being insufferable -- and, in my opinion, wrong-headed.

joefromchicago wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
Really? I know quite a few who do not consider death the worst punishment.

We obviously do not share the same social circles.

Well, I'm not sure what circles you travel in, Joe, but I certainly know many MANY people who do not consider death the worst punishment. In fact, I dare say that a majority of the people with whom I have discussed this issue have indicated that they would much prefer death to being stuck in one of these prisons we have in the United States for the rest of their life. For certain they might change their minds if the occasion arose, but that is their opinion as of now.

Quote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
Not if their convictions preclude torture. You simplified a bit too much there. Convictions are not as unitary as you would portray them.

If their convictions preclude cruel and painful executions but endorse capital punishment, they are inconsistent.

Way, way over the top. I can only assume this is coming from some anger you have toward Craven rather than from the clear-headed thinking you normally display.

Quote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
I disagree. I do not think capital punishment serves only two possible purposes any more than I think spanking a child does. But I will not push this point.

You are wise not to push the point, Craven, as it is indefensible.

There are people who consider the death penalty to be mainly about following the dictates of the god of the Bible -- who decrees death as punishment for various crimes.

The god may indeed consider the death penalty to be retribution -- but the people who support capital punishment because of devotion or allegiance to this god -- support it because of that devotion and allegiance -- not as retribution.

I'm sure Craven will cover many of these things -- but I wanted to at least mention that I disagree with your position here -- and agree, in large part, with Craven's.

0 Replies

The least cruel method of execution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know