PDA

View Full Version : Even more philosophy



bugsysservant
2007-08-01, 10:06 AM
I was thinking yesterday (it hurt, I don't intend to do it again), pondering a couple of philosophical/moral questions. So, without further ado...

1. Someone commits a murder, but in the intricacies of police investigation, the wrong man is convicted, prosecuted, and sent to jail. After being released, he is so enraged at the real killer that his first act is to kill him. Assume he would be sent to jail for the same period as the original crime.

2. Again, someone commits a crime, and the wrong man is convicted. But this time, it is a capital offense, and that man is put to death. The real perpertrator attends the hanging, and is scared so much by the implications of his crime, that he swears to become a law abiding, productive member of society. Assume he keeps his word.

There, I'm not going to muddy the situations with words like "should" or "deserve" because I believe that such subtle things can drastically change the nature of the scenario. Given only the information above, how would you act?

Slightly editted

Totally Guy
2007-08-01, 10:10 AM
Can there never be philosophy where no one dies?

bugsysservant
2007-08-01, 10:15 AM
Can there never be philosophy where no one dies?

Nope, everything is amorality up to killing.
Seriously, this is just a way of polarizing the situation to eliminate other factors. If I said "Joey pushed someone but Fred got sent to time-out, but once released Fred went and pushed Joey, should he be sent back?" the question doesn't inherently change, but people are likely to dismiss it based on triviality, or even due to the fact that they are (apparently) children.

Telonius
2007-08-01, 10:24 AM
Can there never be philosophy where no one dies?

No, because that would be counter-factual. Everybody does die, eventually.:smallbiggrin:

To the OP, I'm not sure what the question is. Are we supposed to be taking the role of the jury, the criminal, the innocent? I can't really act at all in either of those situations, since in A the killing has already been done and I'm neither a judge, law enforcement official, nor on the jury; and in B only the actual perpetrator knows there's been a mistake.

bugsysservant
2007-08-01, 10:29 AM
No, because that would be counter-factual. Everybody does die, eventually.:smallbiggrin:

To the OP, I'm not sure what the question is. Are we supposed to be taking the role of the jury, the criminal, the innocent? I can't really act at all in either of those situations, since in A the killing has already been done and I'm neither a judge, law enforcement official, nor on the jury; and in B only the actual perpetrator knows there's been a mistake.

The question is, how would you act if you could control events (sorry for any ambiguity). Would you send the man to jail because he is a dangerous criminal? Would you pardon him, since he already paid his debt to society? Why? Or for the other question, would you put him to death, because he committed a crime, or would you allow him to continue with his law abiding life, because you would hurt the society by eliminating a successful, contributing member?

Sucrose
2007-08-01, 10:42 AM
My morality is largely Utilitarian (I don't swear by it, so don't ask me to defend its shortcomings) so I'd have to go with imprison the guy who kills the original killer, and leave the other person alone.

This question is essentially one of what we feel the proper role of law enforcement is.

These answers are all based on my opinion that the purpose of law enforcement is to protect the members of society, rather than punish the guilty. The latter, I feel, is ultimately not our decision to make.

As such, in the first case, we have no reason to believe that a man who was willing to kill when angered enough would not do so again. Ergo, we imprison him to prevent the possibility from emerging.

In the second case, if we have a guaranteed way of being certain that this man won't commit another crime, and thus will have a net positive contribution to society from this point forward, then the purpose of law enforcement would be to punish the guilty, and would harm society for the sake of "justice." Given my above stance, I feel that this would be counterproductive.

Wolfman42666
2007-08-01, 10:44 AM
This is the kind of situation that made me give up on being law abiding or moral.

1) What can I say to that? First how did he manage to track down the real perpetrator when the police couldn't? Second why would you kill someone and allow yourself to be caught, having been so enraged by prison that your first act after was to kill somebody

2) I'm sorry I don't know. That was the point of hanging people anyway. To make an "example", guilt and innocence didn't use to matter, so long as that message got passed along i.e. live lawfully or this'll happen. But I don't know how death would scare the perpetrator anymore, (current affairs 'n' all that)

You might as well have asked "why are we reminded of the Holocaust every over day, when were still letting genocide happen?"

Edit: And to the above poster I intend never to do anything in my life to "benefit" society it's based around morality and as I said I think morality is flawed. Severely.

Things like this make me feel tired. Time for me to talk about something else.

Renegade Paladin
2007-08-01, 10:53 AM
Edit: And to the above poster I intend never to do anything in my life to "benefit" society it's based around morality and as I said I think morality is flawed. Severely.
How's this, then: If you hate society so much, how about you give up all the stuff that it has made possible for you, starting with your computer, and go live out in the woods by yourself somewhere? :smallannoyed: It cracks me up that anyone could have the gall to go on the Internet and rant about how he doesn't intend to benefit society when he's clearly benefiting from society himself even as he's writing his rant by virtue of the fact that he's clearly using the Internet in the first place. :smallamused:

averagejoe
2007-08-01, 11:25 AM
Edit: And to the above poster I intend never to do anything in my life to "benefit" society it's based around morality and as I said I think morality is flawed. Severely.

Would you never do anything to benifit other people, then? You would, when faced with people dying of thirst, deny them water when all it would take is for you to twist a spigot, just so you don't benifit society?

How can morality be flawed? Certain systems of morality can be flawed, but morality itself is just a concept.


Can there never be philosophy where no one dies?

Averagejoe to the rescue! Psssshhhhh!

Telonius
2007-08-01, 12:34 PM
For the first scenario, offer the guy a choice. He can accept compensation for the time spent in prison (totalling several million dollars), and then be convicted of murder, spending an equal amount of time in jail. Or, he can plead guilty to a lesser charge and get a suspended sentence, but no monetary compensation. He'll be free to go, but the sentence would come back into effect if he commits a crime ever again. Either way, the original sentence would be vacated.

Second scenario: I'm generally against the death penalty except in truly extraordinary cases. The crime would have to be truly horrendous, and shocking to the conscience. Guilt would have to be beyond any doubt (not just any reasonable doubt). The perpetrator would have to pose an ongoing risk by holding him alive (his minions will attack the prison to free him, he will try to attack the guards, etc). The perpetrator would have to express no remorse whatsoever. Finally, the execution would have to take place in a lawful manner, as humanely as possible. This narrows down the list to a few of the nastiest examples of "humanity" the world has ever seen. A standard homicide, or even a mass murderer, wouldn't qualify.

I'm guessing the guy in our example isn't named Hitler, Pot, or Bin Laden. Given that, I'd sentence the guy to life in prison. He was guilty of the original crime, whatever that was (probably murder). Also, he could have stopped the execution, so he has that guy's death on his hands too. Good works don't absolve guilt - otherwise all criminals would start to work for charities.

Telonius
2007-08-01, 12:49 PM
My morality is largely Utilitarian (I don't swear by it, so don't ask me to defend its shortcomings) so I'd have to go with imprison the guy who kills the original killer, and leave the other person alone.

This question is essentially one of what we feel the proper role of law enforcement is.

These answers are all based on my opinion that the purpose of law enforcement is to protect the members of society, rather than punish the guilty. The latter, I feel, is ultimately not our decision to make.

As such, in the first case, we have no reason to believe that a man who was willing to kill when angered enough would not do so again. Ergo, we imprison him to prevent the possibility from emerging.

In the second case, if we have a guaranteed way of being certain that this man won't commit another crime, and thus will have a net positive contribution to society from this point forward, then the purpose of law enforcement would be to punish the guilty, and would harm society for the sake of "justice." Given my above stance, I feel that this would be counterproductive.

I would think that if "punishing the guilty" brings about a benefit to society, a utilitarian would have to consider that in the analysis. Adopting the stance you use for the second example could actually result in a fairly large harm to society. How many enemies would some people stealthily kill, if they knew that the only consequences would be (essentially) some community service? I think that a human life would count for quite a few more Utils than that.

Tom_Violence
2007-08-01, 12:50 PM
#1 - seems reasonable that the original guy should go back to prison. Why not?

#2 - hmm, I would probably say to let the guy go. Probably. If the other guy wasn't already dead then it would be a different case, but to arrrest him would be to admit to having a system that occasionally kills the wrong people, and any benefit the public might get from knowing the right guy had been caught would most likely be outweighed by knowing that an innocent man was killed.

For those interested in this sort of thing, here's one of my favourite articles arguing the case for a retributivist justification of punishment: http://www.bradpriddy.com/rachels/punanddes.pdf The first half is about desert, so you can probably skip that for the sake of this here.


How's this, then: If you hate society so much, how about you give up all the stuff that it has made possible for you, starting with your computer, and go live out in the woods by yourself somewhere? :smallannoyed: It cracks me up that anyone could have the gall to go on the Internet and rant about how he doesn't intend to benefit society when he's clearly benefiting from society himself even as he's writing his rant by virtue of the fact that he's clearly using the Internet in the first place. :smallamused:

Just because 'society' (I have to say, I hate that word. Everytime I use it I feel like a little kid and think I should go put on my System Of A Down hoodie and go wander around town snarling at people) benefits you might not actually mean you owe anything to it. Imagine if someone kept giving you money without you asking for it. Of course you use the money and it helps you out, but are you obligated to do anything for the guy back? Political consent has always interested me.

Renegade Paladin
2007-08-01, 12:58 PM
And that doesn't strike you as the least bit hypocritical? Look, society isn't giving this stuff to you, barring some truly extraordinary circumstance. You're actively participating in the economy by buying stuff (computer, Internet access, clothing, probably food), which is not only a conscious decision on your part, but one that's benefiting other people, namely those you're buying from. The only way to actually do what you stated you want to do (that is, not benefit anyone else) is to go live as a hermit.

Wolfman42666
2007-08-01, 01:58 PM
Okay, what I meant and what I said (posted) were clearly very different.

First If I saw people dying of thirst and myself had access to water I would help them. But this assumes I'm not in their situation and that if do help them I won't have switched sides. But I don't think of this as a benefit to society.
Theres a difference between what helps people and what helps society.

As was pointed out by the programme yes Prime minister my government hasn't banned smoking because the people who die every year from it and who cost the NHS millions would’ve cost the government more in old age. Money that government is then free to spend on something else, say quality of living, see where this is going?:smallamused:

Second to Renage Paladin, That's a great idea, I'd do it to if there was a wood large enough left in Britain with an ecosystem to support a 15 year old with 2 ranks in survival (:smallamused: )

Third to average Joe: okay wise guy, the application of the concept of morality as a major influence in the creation of Law is flawed. *Sheesh*

Fourth at Renegade Paladin, I'm not actively participating in society, I haven't bought anything for at least 3 weeks, How exactly does buying a chocolate bar from tesco help the person behind the till? They get paid even if I don't, and it's not like Mr Tesco or his stockholders need the money.

Oh and finally I never posted anything about not helping anyone.
I also try whenever I can to help other people too. Mostly by listening.

Sorry if my response has caused more offence, but I'm of the opinion that helping people and helping society are as far apart (as a very wise man once said paraphrased) as lies and deception.:smallbiggrin:

Tom_Violence
2007-08-01, 02:17 PM
And that doesn't strike you as the least bit hypocritical? Look, society isn't giving this stuff to you, barring some truly extraordinary circumstance. You're actively participating in the economy by buying stuff (computer, Internet access, clothing, probably food), which is not only a conscious decision on your part, but one that's benefiting other people, namely those you're buying from. The only way to actually do what you stated you want to do (that is, not benefit anyone else) is to go live as a hermit.

I took Wolfman's point to be that he didn't intend to benefit society anymore than absolutely necessary, not that he wanted to live his life in a way that no one else will ever benefit from ever. This could mean that he'd want to never pay taxes (extreme), or this could simply mean that he would do everything he can to avoid 'extra' duties (such as jury duty, for example).

That's another reason why I don't like the term 'society' - very rarely do I find a suitable definition, and things often become tricky without one. By buying stuff you're benefitting individuals obviously, but the fact the economy stays intact by people doing this is an unintended side effect (I don't think many people buy things with the express intent of aiding the economy). My point here is that I see no hypocrisy in exchanging money for services, whilst at the same not wanting to actively aid society, as at no point do you have any direct contact with 'society'. When I buy something I am no doubt indirectly aiding the seller's family due to his income, but if asked 'would you aid the children of a complete stranger?' my answer would be 'no'.

As for society giving me stuff, to an extent this is true. There are benefits of society that I don't have to pay for in order to enjoy. For example, I can enjoy the protection of a police force, or the infrastructure of a telecomunications network, without ever paying for these things. This is most clear when I go abroad.

bugsysservant
2007-08-01, 02:42 PM
Fourth at Renegade Paladin, I'm not actively participating in society, I haven't bought anything for at least 3 weeks, How exactly does buying a chocolate bar from tesco help the person behind the till? They get paid even if I don't, and it's not like Mr Tesco or his stockholders need the money.

Um, wasn't this one of the things of Scott Adams "You are wrong because..." list? I seem to recall the example being along the lines of "We should be able to shoplift as long as it doesn't hurt the companies earnings." The point is that you can't look at a collective entity, and point out that it wouldn't be hurt if you did or didn't do one thing, where, if everyone did that thing, it would collapse. Grass never directly benefits a lion, so why should the lion give its corpse to nourish the selfish grass?

Anyway, didn't you say you are fifteen. Now I live in a different country, so I am probably going out on a limb here, but I'm going to guess that some sort of legal guardian does support you with products made by others. And I will even go further by stating that those products were probably obtained with *gasp* money. There are still places in this world with almost no society, either because the region is torn by war, or it is inhospitable. Living there would be a valid protest against society. Typing on a computer, which was bought with money, complaning, is not. And yes, it is hypocritcal to rant against society, and still use money, anymore than it would be hypocritcal to rant against spagetti and proceed to feed it to yourself and your family every night by choice.

averagejoe
2007-08-01, 02:52 PM
Theres a difference between what helps people and what helps society.

I don't understand. Society cannot exist without people; to help society you must help people.

Telonius
2007-08-01, 03:46 PM
Gramsci-sense... tingling ... :smallyuk:

Sucrose
2007-08-01, 05:25 PM
I would think that if "punishing the guilty" brings about a benefit to society, a utilitarian would have to consider that in the analysis. Adopting the stance you use for the second example could actually result in a fairly large harm to society. How many enemies would some people stealthily kill, if they knew that the only consequences would be (essentially) some community service? I think that a human life would count for quite a few more Utils than that.

That is a very good point, and one that I hadn't considered. However, it does not do society any good to punish the guilty.

What is important is the appearance of punishing the guilty, because the ultimate purpose of said punishment is deterrence, and if everyone thinks that they will be punished for the crime, even if that theory is not always correct, they will still usually be prevented from committing it. Thus, the hanging of the innocent man served the purpose adequately.

It makes me feel a bit dirty to talk about killing an innocent this way, but he's already dead, so we may as well make the most of this situation, and keep a productive member of society.

This is not to say that the police shouldn't strive to capture the real deal in a given crime, thus providing validity to the appearance, because that falls into my first answer: the perpetrator is a violent thug, and we have no reason to believe that he won't kill again, if he gets angry enough, which is, of course, harmful to society. However, the fact that, in this case, he will reform (and isn't just saying that, but actually physically guaranteed to do so) removes that impetus. Of course, if we only had the assurance that is normally possible for a human to have in a given outcome, my answer would change: there's no reason to take a murderer at his word, since he clearly cares nothing for the social contract.

The other point I found interesting in your post is the reference to precedent, and the liklihood that someone would take my mercy as an excuse to kill people, since I'm letting this guy off so easy. You're quite right, unless there's some way that I can either demonstrate the certainty that he will reform, which nobody could count on occurring after they killed someone, or I have just as much unrealistic certainty of being able to cover this up as I do that the murderer will never commit another crime.

Thus, I suppose that my answer to the second changes a bit.

IF

I can be absolutely certain (we're talking "I know every single possible future, and none of them involve him so much as stealing a candy bar") that he'll never break the social contract again, and either
1) I can demonstrate the validity of this certainty, or
2) I can cover my actions up, and have an equal degree of certainty that they won't be discovered,

THEN

I would leave him alone.

Edit: Wall of Text FTW!

Sisqui
2007-08-01, 06:11 PM
1. Someone commits a murder, but in the intricacies of police investigation, the wrong man is convicted, prosecuted, and sent to jail. After being released, he is so enraged at the real killer that his first act is to kill him. Assume he would be sent to jail for the same period as the original crime.


Two words. Jury nullification.


2. Again, someone commits a crime, and the wrong man is convicted. But this time, it is a capital offense, and that man is put to death. The real perpertrator attends the hanging, and is scared so much by the implications of his crime, that he swears to become a law abiding, productive member of society. Assume he keeps his word.


Um, excuse me, but the guy has already killed again. A capital crime involves the death of one person. Allowing someone else to die for it kills a second. He deserves no mercy. None whatsoever. And, just for good measure, let him die the way his victims did.

And, just in case it escaped everyone's notice, there is still the innocent man's family to consider. Their loved one is gone and they must cope not only with that loss, but with the fact that their loved one is portrayed as a killer and they have no ability to clear his name. Meanwhile, the murderer is cloaked in the "decency" afforded him by the tarnishing of an innocent man's good name.

bugsysservant
2007-08-01, 08:52 PM
Um, excuse me, but the guy has already killed again. A capital crime involves the death of one person. Allowing someone else to die for it kills a second. He deserves no mercy. None whatsoever. And, just for good measure, let him die the way his victims did.

And, just in case it escaped everyone's notice, there is still the innocent man's family to consider. Their loved one is gone and they must cope not only with that loss, but with the fact that their loved one is portrayed as a killer and they have no ability to clear his name. Meanwhile, the murderer is cloaked in the "decency" afforded him by the tarnishing of an innocent man's good name.

Actually, I did not specify country (intentionally) and there are crimes that carry a death sentence without murder. For instance, isn't high treason frequently a capital offense? And what if that man lived in a country where the laws are stricter, even oppresive? I hate to bring it up, but what if he had been sentenced to death for stealing the cliched loaf of bread? The point is that there are many crimes that carry a capital punishment, and as such, the scenario demands choice based solely on how much you value justice vs. society, and other factors, not on assumed retribution.

Sisqui
2007-08-02, 07:11 PM
Actually, I did not specify country (intentionally) and there are crimes that carry a death sentence without murder. For instance, isn't high treason frequently a capital offense? And what if that man lived in a country where the laws are stricter, even oppresive? I hate to bring it up, but what if he had been sentenced to death for stealing the cliched loaf of bread? The point is that there are many crimes that carry a capital punishment, and as such, the scenario demands choice based solely on how much you value justice vs. society, and other factors, not on assumed retribution.

Putting the second scenario after the one with a murder confused me, especially since it was a capital generic crime in the second but a non-capital murder in the first. Well, I think putting a man to death for stealing bread is ridiculous, and if that was as far as it had gone, no, I don't think the law was just (see response to first post. I fully support jury nullification if a law is unjust or if the punishment far outweighs the crime). But, even in that example, the guy knowingly and deliberately let someone else die for his crime. What was he thinking while the hanged man was pissing his pants and dangling from a rope? What was he thinking when the guys widow wept at his dying feet? What about the man's soon to be fatherless children? This man ALLOWED it to happen. Sorry. But THAT death he should answer for. Being in fear for his life I can understand. Letting all of that happen to someone who is innocent of even this trumped up crime is just too much, though.

Bumped the thread to get a clarification here. My response to the first question was based on him being sent back to jail for the same period as before if convicted. Did you mean, if he gets convicted the sentence is the same in years but he doesn't go to jail because he is credited for the time he already served? And that his record is expunged of the first crime which will now be attributed to the correct offender?

bugsysservant
2007-08-02, 07:22 PM
Bumped the thread to get a clarification here. My response to the first question was based on him being sent back to jail for the same period as before if convicted. Did you mean, if he gets convicted the sentence is the same in years but he doesn't go to jail because he is credited for the time he already served? And that his record is expunged of the first crime which will now be attributed to the correct offender?

Well, no. Attributing the time to the first offender would be moot, or at most, symbolic, since he is dead. What I meant was, that the man who went to jail and killed the original killer would be sent back to jail for the same duration as he already served, because it was (apparently) an equivalent crime. Thus, if you sent him to jail, he would serve two seperate sentences.

Sisqui
2007-08-02, 07:26 PM
Well, no. Attributing the time to the first offender would be moot, or at most, symbolic, since he is dead. What I meant was, that the man who went to jail and killed the original killer would be sent back to jail for the same duration as he already served, because it was (apparently) an equivalent crime. Thus, if you sent him to jail, he would serve two seperate sentences.


OK. I wanted to be sure I interpreted that question correctly since I did not do so with the second. I would still go with my original answer then. However, if I had to choose the outcome I would go with my second solution to this scenario. Everyone in that one is known to be guilty of their actual crimes. And, given that the guy had already done the time and being framed is one hell of a mitigating circumstance anyway, I have no problem letting him be convicted and then credited with time served.

Trauco
2007-08-02, 07:58 PM
First of all i must make clear that i live in a country that has no capital punishment, and second, that the idea of "punishing" the "guilty" makes me giggle.

Law is a set of rules that dictates what is inside and what is outside of the social contract.

If you can't live inside the boundaries of this contract, you must be removed from society (that's why people gets in jail, stoned to death, ride the lightning, whatever floats your boat).

so basically Law may or may not have something to do with morals. As it may or may not have something to do with aliens in case you live on a country founded by raelians.


Morality (from Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behaviour") refers to the concept of human action which pertains to matters of right and wrong—also referred to as "good and evil"—used within three contexts: individual distinction; systems of valued principles—sometimes called conduct morality—shared within a cultural, religious, secular or philosophical community.

So you say that:


Nope, everything is amorality up to killing.

I must say that according to my morals as a Starbucks consumer, adding salt to my coffee is moraly wrong. (as wrong as it would be for a vegan to eat meat)

now about the case you propose:

1.- The legal system must compensate him for the mistake they comitted earlier (if this system contamplates such thing as a compensation), and then the man must recieve the punishment the law dictates for killing another man.

2.- The man must recieve the punishment the law dictates, it doesn't matter if he is a saint now, he violated the law.

bugsysservant
2007-08-02, 08:58 PM
To Trauco: I was joking about the amorality bit, of course you can have morality outside of death. I was merely responding to the question of why all morality questions seem to involve death.

Also I find the view that the government should compensate for the wrongful convistion before carrying out the exact same sentence intriguing. If someone had their hand cut off for alleged theft for which they were erroneously charged, and the person was later caught stealing from the same man, should he pay to surgically reattach the hand before cutting it off again? Maybe I am too rigid in my interpretation, but this just seems illogical.

Sisqui
2007-08-02, 09:04 PM
With the way things work in the US, they'd probably convict the guy, send him to prison for another X number of years, and pay him restitution for the first X years he served for the wrongful conviction. What a system.....:smallannoyed:

Renegade Paladin
2007-08-02, 11:41 PM
and second, that the idea of "punishing" the "guilty" makes me giggle.
So, what, you think murderers should just walk?

Tom_Violence
2007-08-03, 07:42 AM
Um, excuse me, but the guy has already killed again. A capital crime involves the death of one person. Allowing someone else to die for it kills a second. He deserves no mercy. None whatsoever. And, just for good measure, let him die the way his victims did.

I'd argue that there's a strong distinction between killing someone and having someone die because of something you did or didn't do. Also its entirely possible to conceive of a situation in which there was no way the murderer could have prevented the execution anyway, and it may be charitable to assume this is the scenario.


And, just in case it escaped everyone's notice, there is still the innocent man's family to consider. Their loved one is gone and they must cope not only with that loss, but with the fact that their loved one is portrayed as a killer and they have no ability to clear his name. Meanwhile, the murderer is cloaked in the "decency" afforded him by the tarnishing of an innocent man's good name.

Again, not necessarily. Given the information in the original post its possible that the guy has no family.


So, what, you think murderers should just walk?

Maybe he strongly believes in rehabilitation instead?

Trauco
2007-08-03, 06:44 PM
So, what, you think murderers should just walk?

No i don't think that, but the words "punishment" and "guilty" are funny from my perspective

Punishment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punishment) is the practice of imposing something unpleasant or aversive on a person or animal in response to an unwanted, disobedient or morally wrong behavior.

So two wrongs make one right... riiiight, punishing is abusive behavior, that has nothing to do with repairing the morally wrong act. We need to find another way to deal with "moral-offenders", we invented internet, we have gone to the moon, we have discovered how to stop (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3308109.stm) light, yet we still use stone age psychology to correct wrong/unwanted behavior.

Guilt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt) is the emotion or belief that one has done something wrong. From a legal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt_%28law%29) perspective it can also refer to the condition of having done something legally wrong, regardless of how one feels about it.

this one is funny because it's a one word oxymoron, we should really have a different word for "guy-that-did-something-legally-incorrect-but-not-necessarily-feels-bad-about-it" and "guy-that-feels-bad-for-something-he-did"

So "punishing the guilty" in my mind reads as: Aww you feel bad? let me kick your behind, so I can feel better

I think that we all should speak german, so that kind of "composite-words" actually make sense (i really got to learn german)


Maybe he strongly believes in rehabilitation instead?

I do strongly believe in rehabilitation, but has nothing to do with what I propose.

If you live in a society where you can challenge someone to a duel, and the opponent dies... bummer he is dead, and that's the end of the story (not like i would like to live in a society like that anyway)

But in societies that do not condone murder, murder could be the most terrible thing you can do, so you deserve the highest punishment. that punishment could be anything, because it depends on the law.

If you lived in starbucksland, and you added salt to someones coffee, you would deserve capital punishment then? (because you are guilty, and in that scale of values that's the most terrible thing that you can do, and in starbucksland capital punishment is the highest punishment)

So after you are dead my coffee is still spoiled. and we all win, right?

the highest punishment, does not need to be death


What is important is the appearance of punishing the guilty, because the ultimate purpose of said punishment is deterrence, and if everyone thinks that they will be punished for the crime, even if that theory is not always correct, they will still usually be prevented from committing it. Thus, the hanging of the innocent man served the purpose adequately.

Problem with this approach is that when you commit a crime you are basically gambling, against the odds of being caught, and the price being the "punishment". even if the odds are terrible.

And we all know that people still play roulette.



7. The deterrence argument

Scientific studies have consistently failed to find convincing evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than other punishments. The most recent survey of research findings on the relation between the death penalty and homicide rates, conducted for the United Nations in 1988 and updated in 2002, concluded: ". . .it is not prudent to accept the hypothesis that capital punishment deters murder to a marginally greater extent than does the threat and application of the supposedly lesser punishment of life imprisonment."

(Reference: Roger Hood, The Death Penalty: A World-wide Perspective, Oxford, Clarendon Press, third edition, 2002, p. 230)

Just check yourself (http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-facts-eng)



should he pay to surgically reattach the hand before cutting it off again?

Compensation could be a Pie, or Flowers, a trip to Disneyland. It doesn't matter actually.

I just said that if the laws that govern the society where the innocent-guy-convicted have ANY kind of compensation contemplated for situations like this, he should be compensated.


here's one of my favourite articles arguing the case for a retributivist justification of punishment: http://www.bradpriddy.com/rachels/punanddes.pdf

Great read, thanks.

I agree with "do not, or else" it's the nature of "else" that i think is wrong

Sisqui
2007-08-03, 09:00 PM
I'd argue that there's a strong distinction between killing someone and having someone die because of something you did or didn't do. Also its entirely possible to conceive of a situation in which there was no way the murderer could have prevented the execution anyway, and it may be charitable to assume this is the scenario.

I agree with you- if the death is accidental or unforeseeable. This death clearly was not though. If he committed an illegal act and someone died while he was committing it or directly because he committed it, then he is clearly responsible for the death. This man would not have died but for the actions of the criminal. And I say killed very deliberately. The man hanged was murdered- the offender knew the prisoner was not guilty, and, in all the time the man was imprisoned, tried and awaiting execution, could have exonerated him. His was the criminal act and the death arising out of it is on his hands. Framing someone for a capital crime IS murder. And first degree murder at that. You don't get much more premeditated.




Again, not necessarily. Given the information in the original post its possible that the guy has no family.


That was not technically in reference to this case, but was rather a way of illustrating that murder is more than just the taking of someone's life, a single crime. It is also the taking of someone from other people's lives. I meant that such a crime has more than one victim (well, unless the person is a complete and utter hermit. But, I guess I do need to make that a little clearer since this is the internet- there could be people in here who haven't seen other real life people in years :smallwink: ).




For those interested in this sort of thing, here's one of my favourite articles arguing the case for a retributivist justification of punishment: http://www.bradpriddy.com/rachels/punanddes.pdf The first half is about desert, so you can probably skip that for the sake of this here.



Interesting to read, but I disagree with some of the points in it regarding desert and promotion. However, a lot of it is in line with how I would view things.

bugsysservant
2007-08-03, 11:47 PM
For those interested in this sort of thing, here's one of my favourite articles arguing the case for a retributivist justification of punishment: http://www.bradpriddy.com/rachels/punanddes.pdf The first half is about desert, so you can probably skip that for the sake of this here.

Finally got around to reading it, and it was interesting, but I have to disagree on several points concerning the penal retributionist theories. The way the arguement was constructed served to highlight the strengths of retributionism while failing to point out its greatest failings: that it won't prevent any crime from happening. Deterence, in theory, will prevent crime, as it will demonstrate the price publically. Rehabilitation, on the other hand, will prevent future crimes by removing the criminal motivations of those who have committed crimes. Retribution merely takes an egalitarian view, a sort of cost for moral services rendered. If retribution aims to promote a static quotient of happiness, as the article claims, there will be no reason not to steal, for instance, as the price you pay will be identical to that of someone who had to work to earn it. If you make it a steeper penalty, thats no longer retribution, thats deterence.