Ilion likes to argue that the case for the death penalty has nothing to do with things like deterrence, or closure for victim's families. It is about retribution, and only retribution.
That's probably good for the death penalty, because the case for the death penalty as a deterrent to capital crime strikes me as weak. Pickpockets used to be hanged in England, and the most likely place to get your pocket picked was at a pickpocket hanging.
78 comments:
Pickpockets were more often, in my understanding, snitches who had to do something pretty bad or to the wrong person to get death. Oh, and called cutpurses prior to a certain age.
See: Whiz Mob ('64), Techniques of the Professional Pickpocket ('90), and http://www.deceptology.com/2010/12/see-con-woman-times-four-steal-rich.html.
Of course, someone who gets the death penalty isn't going to kill anyone else.
Hi Victor,
The evidence for the death penalty's deterrent effect is mixed. Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule argue that each use of the death penalty prevents as many as eighteen murders. See here:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=691447
On the other hand, John Donohue and Justin Wolfers dispute this claim. See here:
http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/jwolfers/Papers/DeathPenalty(SLR).pdf
For a brief overview of this debate, written by both Sunstein and Wolfers, see here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/29/AR2008062901476.html
I think that the death penalty does have a deterrent effect, but it is not significant enough to outweigh the costs of the death penalty.
But yes, it's nice to hear the defenders of Law and Order rely on theories of retributive justice. One must maintain The Balance by giving Blood to the Blood God whenever he thirsts. Hail Vectron!
My own take on the death penalty (it's been tempered by my Catholicism, specifically by what I took to be Pope John Paul II's arguments about the culture of death) is that it is justifiable, and may well act as a deterrent - but I'm very hesitant to treat it in a pragmatic way. (Hey, look at the problems we solve if we kill some people!)
On the other hand, the whole "it's barbarous" line of criticism doesn't persuade me much. Still, I imagine diehard (ha ha) death penalty proponents could always make the move of suggesting that people sentenced to death should be executed by scientific experiment. That way they could accuse anyone opposing them of being at war with science.
Top it off with organ harvesting too. Assuming the scientific experiments don't ruin them.
"Ilion likes to argue that the case for the death penalty ..."
If you want to speak a bit more precisely, you might note that Ilíon differentiates between 'Capital Punishment' and some non-specific "death penalty". Specifically, Ilíon points out that *all* normative law is implicitly or explicitly backed up by a "death penalty" -- do what the government, or its agents, demand of you, or you shall experience violence-unto-death. Moreover, this “death penalty” that is meted out ourside a courtroom has a vastly higher odds of being imposed for what we all believes to be “the wrong reasons.” For example, the “death penalty” that was delivered in Waco, Texas by the impatient wack-jobs in the FBI and ATF, at the permission of Janet Reno (who needed to prove that she had the balls to OK it), was a very different thing, in all particulars, from the capital punishment recently delivered to “Tookie” Williams.
Further, if you want to speak more precisely about what Ilíon argues, you could point out that he argues that to look to anything other than justice as the rationale or justification for meting out *any* punishment (whether or not it involves death) is to set up oneself, and one’s “system”, to commit and endorse injustice. For, after all, If ”deterrence”, or even “closure”, rather than just deserts, is the rationale for inflicting some punishment upon some person, than it hardly matters whether the person so punished is guilty or innocent of whatever he is being punished for -- and, if your goal is to *control* the people you rule, rather than to see that justice is done, then punishing the obviously innocent can be a very effective tool of control.
Lastly, if you want to speak more fully about what Ilíon argues, you could point out that he argues the very important point that:
1) since *all* normative law is implicitly or explicitly backed up by a "death penalty";
2) therefore, *all* arguments against Capital Punishment, per se (that is, all blanket opposition to CP), are logically arguments for anarchy and against the continuation of civil society.
Reality *always* wins. We, as a society, have two options. We can choose to have an actually just society – which will sometimes require that we execute those who commit egregious crimes. Or, we can choose to try to live by the “liberal” false version of justice, which must inevitably result in a society falling apart to vendetta and blood-feud, with a detour through governmental repression before the total collapse.
A just society, to speak nothing of one that desires to endure for another generation, *must* do all within its power to exact just vengeance for the injustices committed against its members – to decline or refuse to do so is to say, “That person was never a member of this society, and so we have no explicit responsibility to or for him/her”. A just government, to speak nothing of one which desires to justify the continuation of its rule over the society it rules, *must* do all within its power to exact just vengeance for the injustices committed against the persons it rules – to decline or refuse to do so is to say, “This government is less morally-grounded than the Mafia is: you ‘citizens’ exist only to be farmed for tax monies”.
Jesse Parrish, who is just one more 'atheist' hater of mankind: "But yes, it's nice to hear the defenders of Law and Order rely on theories of retributive justice."
Alternately, it's refreshing to have "liberals" step outside their comfort-zone by occasionally speaking the truth of their views or motivations:
1) we don't give a damn about actual justice ... except for injustice that touches us, personally;
2) and, we don't give a rat's ass about you little people -- we love, or at least admire, the predators who murder and rape you, but you are not worth our time.
Ilion, here's one thing I'm wondering about your view.
Let's say one person viciously cripples another person intentionally and with foresight. Let's also say the victim doesn't have any dependents, and won't be dependent on anyone else due to their crippling.
Now, I could suppose you would say that justice demands punishment X. What I wonder is, in your view, does the victim have the right to impose a *lesser* punishment on the guilty? Or is it your view that given the crime, the punishment is certain and mandatory?
Crude,
You're wasting your time "wondering" about Ilion's views. (It's never a good idea to try to make sense out of insanity.) His ravings are harmless as long as you keep him away from guns.
Bob,
I disagree, but either way I'm more interested in his reply to my question than in bashing or defending him.
Come to think of it, the question I asked would be good for you as well. I'm curious.
I'm not entirely sure I understand the question, but in general I'm not a big fan of letting victims have a huge say in what a criminal's sentence should be. That's what we have law for.
I do think that victims should have the right to testify in court - to let the judge and jury hear what they have to say.
I don't really have strong views on capital punishment. I lean against it for a number of reasons:
1. Possibility of executing an innocent man.
2. Denying the criminal an opportunity to repent.
3. Life imprisonment is probably a far worse fate than death in any case (if punishment is what you're worried about).
4. It's been abused far too often in history.
5. It's not applied equally across the board (a black man is far more likely to get the death penalty than a white one, a poor man than a rich one).
6. What does it do to us as a society to let this happen? What about the executioners?
7. I've never heard a really good reasoned argument IN FAVOR of it.
I'm not entirely sure I understand the question, but in general I'm not a big fan of letting victims have a huge say in what a criminal's sentence should be. That's what we have law for.
Well, in this case the punishment is determined by the law. But the punishment can be reduced by the (in this case, sole) victim. (I know someone can argue that no victim, even in the conditions I outlined, is ever the 'sole' victim. But for now let's let that pass.)
You say you don't think victims should have a huge say. That to me just seems mistaken. The one person who was actually a victim of the crime not being given primary consideration in sentencing? Granted, you still need laws. (No "You were on my lawn without permission? 500k fine!")
I'm talking ideally here. I can absolutely see the practical downsides of this sort of thing.
Crude: "Ilion, here's one thing I'm wondering about your view.
Let's say one person viciously cripples another person intentionally and with foresight. Let's also say the victim doesn't have any dependents, and won't be dependent on anyone else due to their [sic] crippling.
Now, I could suppose you would say that justice demands punishment X. What I wonder is, in your view, does the victim have the right to impose a *lesser* punishment on the guilty? Or is it your view that given the crime, the punishment is certain and mandatory?"
Is she (*) indeed remorseful for the injustice she deliberately inflicted upon him. More to the point, does he have valid rational warrant to choose to believe that she regrets not merely the consequences of her act, but regrets the act itself? And, more importantly, do we – society – have valid rational warrant to choose to believe that she repents of her deliberate and wicked act?
Absent a valid rational warrant for choosing to believe that the criminal repents her crime, then calls for extending her mercy are not calls for actual mercy, but are rather just moral preening (**) … and, moreover, such calls have the practical effect of increasing injustice, rather than of decreasing it (thus, one will tend to find “liberals” constantly calling for this sort of pseudo-mercy coupled with accusing those who do not accede to the injustice of being “mean-spirited” … “liberals” are, after all, all about moral preening).
Further, we, society, have no more moral obligation to listen to his pleas that we give her a lesser punishment than she deserves than we do to listen should he have begged us to give her a more severe punishment than she deserves. On what rational ground can one argue that we have the moral obligation in the one direction, but not in the other?
The criminal did not deliberately injure just one man: she attacked all of us. We all have a stake in seeing that justice is done.
(*) I'm intentionally mocking "gender inclusive language" by making the bad guy a she.
(**) Humans, and especially the “liberal” species of them, like to pose as more moral and more merciful than God. Of course, since God is Morality Itself and Mercy Itself (and also Justice Itself, among other things), it is logically impossible for any human to be more moral or more merciful than God. That doesn’t stop the posing, though.
There is always a certain tension between justice and mercy, for mercy has at its core something in common with injustice at its core; and also, there can be no mercy if there is not first judgment/condemnation. “Liberals” like to indulge the foolish notion that we can skip the judgment (and especially the condemnation aspect) and go right to the “mercy”.
What mercy and injustice have in common is that, in both cases, the recipients receive what they do not deserve. This is in contrast to, and in opposition to, justice, by which the recipients receive just what they do deserve.
Mercy – real mercy, in contrast to the pseudo-mercy that “liberals” like – can be extended only when at least these three conditions are met:
1) the person who presumes to be extending mercy must first possess the moral authority to pass judgment and condemnation and punishment upon the other. Thus, the thief who spares her (*) victim’s life, even though he saw her face and can now identify her, is not extending him mercy, for she has no moral authority to take his life in the first place;
2) there must have been judgment of the person to who mercy is allegedly being extended; there must have been a just/moral determination that the person is guilty of the crime of which she (*) is accused, and there must have been a just/moral determination that, as punishment for her crime, she deserves thus-and-such particular punishment;
3) there must be, on the part of the person to whom mercy is allegedly being extended, a genuine admission of guilt and repentance of her (*) unjust act; it is not enough that she regrets the consequences of the act, she must regret the act itself. And, of course, this third condition is especially difficult for us to implement.
Absent these three factors, the alleged mercy being extended is not actual mercy, it is injustice. And moral preening.
======
(*) I'm intentionally mocking "gender inclusive language" by making the bad guy a she.
The criminal did not deliberately injure just one man: she attacked all of us. We all have a stake in seeing that justice is done.
Alright, I had a feeling that one may come.
But it sounds like, conditional on an honest and thorough repentance, you'd agree to a lesser punishment? And would this lesser punishment depend on the will of the victim at that point?
No one deserves mercy. To claim that someone deserves mercy is to assert an oxymoron. True mercy, like true injustice, is most undeserved by the persons who receive it; for, if it were deserved, then it would be justice, and neither injustice nor mercy.
Ilíon: "The criminal did not deliberately injure just one man: she attacked all of us. We all have a stake in seeing that justice is done."
Crude: "Alright, I had a feeling that one may come."
Does it cease to be true because some persons do not like the propositions which logically follow from it?
Crude: "But it sounds like, conditional on an honest and thorough repentance, you'd agree to a lesser punishment?"
And how are *we* to make the determination that she does indeed repent of the injustice she committed one man and against all members of our society?
What if she's just good at shedding tears when they may serve her purpose -- she is a woman, after all, and thus she *knows* how to use tears to manipulate men. Moreover, she's quite attractive -- and men tend to want to shelter women from the harshness of life, especially the attractive ones. She gets pseudo-mercy on the basis of the manipulated emotions of some men.
What about the next proposed candidate for mercy? What if he is a man, and an ugly one, at that. And what if he is indeed remorseful, and wants nothing more that to spend the rest of his life doing what little he can to make restitution to his victims? But, he's a man, and an ugly one -- he's not at all a "sympathetic witness" on his own behalf -- and so he doesn't receive mercy.
Mercy, in the hands of sinful human beings, is even more dangerous than is justice in their hands.
Crude: "And would this lesser punishment depend on the will of the victim at that point?"
Does she deserve a lesser punishment? To say that she deserves a lesser punishment is to say that the original punishment was all out of proportion to the crime; for instance, imposing CP for jaywalking.
We *all* have the moral duty to do what we can to increase justice and decrease injustice. It is not enough to "deplore" the injustices criminal inflict upon their prey; it is not enough to wring our hands, as though we were morally-stunted "liberals", about the injustices criminal inflict upon their prey. If we, both individually and socially, by our refusal to do the appropriate "due dilligence", make it easier for a criminal to find new prey, then we have not simply failed our moral duty, we have deliberately shirked it.
Our hypothetical victim of our hypothetical vicious woman has, just as we all do, a far greater duty to the potential future victims of this vicious woman than he has to his own self-image as a "merciful" man. Extending "mercy" to this woman, without very good warrant as justification for choosing to believe that has repented her act and poses no extra risk (that is, over and above the risk that all humans pose one to another) to other persons, is to deliberately make oneself an accessory in the injustices she inflicts upon her next prey.
"Good intentions" and *never* good enough; one must have a reasonable expectation, reasonably arrived at, that reality will work out in accord with those "good intentions". Recognition of this fact is *why* we have that adage about the paving-stones on a certain road.
Does it cease to be true because some persons do not like the propositions which logically follow from it?
That wasn't a criticism, just an objection I expected.
And how are *we* to make the determination that she does indeed repent of the injustice she committed one man and against all members of our society?
Well, you said "Absent a valid rational warrant for choosing to believe that the criminal repents her crime,", so I thought you'd have some idea along these lines.
Nothing makes you a `hater of mankind' like proposing `let's not kill people unnecessarily', I suppose.
I'm not sure how Ilion derived (1) or (2) from that. Is this sort of like "but honey if I didn't hit you so much I wouldn't really love you?" logic?
But for fun, this:
Lastly, if you want to speak more fully about what Ilíon argues, you could point out that he argues the very important point that:
1) since *all* normative law is implicitly or explicitly backed up by a "death penalty";
2) therefore, *all* arguments against Capital Punishment, per se (that is, all blanket opposition to CP), are logically arguments for anarchy and against the continuation of civil society.
In another thread in a slightly different context, I made a distinction between opposing violence and being a pacifist. By my not being a pacifist I accept that under certain circumstances, I would prefer an act of war, even though ceteris paribus I do not prefer violence.
Ok, now let's look at the implicit `death penalty' which comes with enforcing laws and see whether or not it is possible to have this - which is not so general as you make it - while maintaining a blanket opposition to capital punishment. This should be obvious, but as it apparently is not...
The implication fails if `I accept the enforcement of laws even to death' is conditional. For example, I accept that shoplifters should be detained - if necessary, by force - but not by lethal force. I accept that fights should be broken up - again, if necessary, by force - but not necessarily by lethal force. It's the difference between our accepting an officer who draws his gun at every crime scene and riddles the perpetrator with bullets and an officer who threatens and uses lethal force only as a last resort.
If you dodge taxes, you might be put into prison. That's force. But unless you pose an immediate danger to others, you shouldn't be shot for dodging taxes.
Note the condition of interest across all of these cases: lethal force bears a heavy burden, namely that lethal force is already in play. What blanket opponents of capital punishment maintain is that with the failure of this condition, lethal force should not be applied.
Liberals of a traditional bent accept something like the Harm Principle. A person who accepts such a principle could accept normative law while still rejecting capital punishment.
And of course, there's more to it than the failure of a condition. There's also a concern about giving the State more lethal power. There's a concern about executing innocents. There's a concern about racist application. There's a concern about its misuses by demagogues.
So even if somebody accepted that in certain circumstances it would be permissible to apply Capital Punishment, she may still prefer a general legal ban, thinking the exceptions not worth the rule.
One more "liberal" liar: "Nothing makes you a `hater of mankind' like proposing `let's not kill people unnecessarily', I suppose.
I'm not sure how Ilion derived (1) or (2) from that. Is this sort of like "but honey if I didn't hit you so much I wouldn't really love you?" logic?"
And now hw plays the "Poor Little Me" game -- "Waaa! The big, bad, mean, old conservative is picking on me" -- and even then, he cannot resist lobbing yet another iteration of his previous lie.
Does it really matter whether this fellow's constitutional dishonesty is rooted in his leftism or in his God-hatred? Both are, after all, but variations of the same theme: hatred of God and truth, and hatred of actualy-existing human beings. Both proclaim loudly how greatly they "love mankind" ... and still they hate human beings.
The only hatred I see here is coming from Ilion. He needs to look in the mirror.
*** Weirdly appropriate - the anti-spam word for this post is "anger".
Poor, poor Anonymouse,
Apparently, hatred of dishonesty and/or irrationality offends him. And, if so, that seems logically to indicate that he loves dishonesty and/or irrationality.
And, obviously, Mr Parrish's nasty post doesn't offend this Anonymouse: "... But yes, it's nice to hear the defenders of Law and Order rely on theories of retributive justice. One must maintain The Balance by giving Blood to the Blood God whenever he thirsts. Hail Vectron!"
Fortunately, it doesn't bother me at all to be a "meanie" -- it's not my job to be a social doormat for leftists and God-haters; it's not my job to close my eyes and sing Kumbayah; it's not my job to stroke the egos and build up the tender psyches of persons who will not reason soundly or will not speak/admit truth.
Ilion,
(*) I'm intentionally mocking "gender inclusive language" by making the bad guy a she.
Why is that mockery?
C.S. Lewis (Problem of Pain) :
Some enlightened people would like to banish all conceptions of retribution or desert from their theory of punishment and place its value wholly in the deterrence of others or the reform of the criminal himself. They do not see that by so doing they render all punishment unjust. What can be more immoral than to inflict suffering on me for the sake of deterring others if I do not deserve it? And if I do deserve it, you are admitting the claims of ‘retribution.’ And what can be more outrageous than to catch me and submit me to a disagreeable process of moral improvement without my consent, unless (once more) I deserve it? On yet a third level we get vindictive passion — the thirst for revenge. . . . The good thing of which vindictive passion is the perversion comes out with startling clarity in Hobbes’s definition of Revengefulness, ‘desire by doing hurt to another to make him condemn some fact of his own.’ Revenge loses sight of the end in the means, but its end is not wholly bad — it wants the evil of the bad man to be to him what it is to everyone else.
I suppose that once Ilion hits gender-inclusive language, all other contents are voided from his head. It's like having a reset button for crazy. If someone else here wants to use it, I won't demand a royalty.
Anyways, I'll stick to `he' for now and point out that I took on his supposed implication, and found it wanting. I note the long-standing trend that he appears to think only in unconditional statements, and suspect the psychological implications here involve Vectron.
Ilion, if you can get past the trauma of being mocked by a big bad atheist/anarchist/socialist/all-around heretic, perhaps you would be so kind as to rework your syllogism into a valid argument, with the requisite premises explicit?
And I note again: we have wholly differing notions of `hating human beings' if my opposition to the death penalty is considered by you to be `anti-human'. And I care not for your kumbayahs, and am happy to reason soundly without your approval. The latter is fortunate, as the circumstance seems necessary.
For the record; I'm against the execution of CP, but for the (possibility of) the verdict of CP.
I believe we are all unworthy of casting the first stone.
As for the Harm principle, I'm all for it. But it does not directly address the situation of a crime against a victim, does it?
If someone rapes and kills my wife and daughter while I'm at work, then they must be put to death. It is what justice demands on multiple levels.
Frankly, liberals like Jesse Parrish can simply shove their insipid position where the sun doesn't shine, as far as I'm concerned.
From the Book of Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), in the (Catholic) Old Testament (Sir 27:30-28:7):
Anger and wrath, these also are abominations, and the sinful man will possess them. He that takes vengeance will suffer vengeance from the Lord, and he will firmly establish his sins. Forgive your neighbor the wrong he has done, and then your sins will be pardoned when you pray. Does a man harbor anger against another, and yet seek for healing from the Lord? Does he have no mercy toward a man like himself, and yet pray for his own sins? If he himself, being flesh, maintains wrath, who will make expiation for his sins? Remember the end of your life, and cease from enmity, remember destruction and death, and be true to the commandments. Remember the commandments, and do not be angry with your neighbor; remember the covenant of the Most High, and overlook ignorance.
Rasmus Møller said...
C.S. Lewis (Problem of Pain) :
Some enlightened people would like to banish all conceptions of retribution or desert from their theory of punishment and place its value wholly in the deterrence of others or the reform of the criminal himself.
Did safeguarding other people in society even come up in that work?
Anonymous,
I'm sure that with your wife and daughter raped and killed, your life will immediately become much better if the killer is dead instead of imprisoned for life. Assuming, of course, they got the right guy. If they got the wrong guy, I'm sure you'll feel much better that they killed an innocent man and lost the opportunity to catch the real killer.
Or maybe it's insipid of me to expect that the damage has rather been done.
(And why do people keep calling me a liberal? I might qualify to some extent, but isn't `socialist' a much better curse word?)
Rasmus,
The Harm Principle legitimizes state intervention in that case. I'm not sure where you're missing the applicability.
Or maybe it's insipid of me to expect that the damage has rather been done.
Well, clearly there's further damage to be done if the murderer is not punished. Change clearly to arguably if you're skeptical.
I can appreciate the concerns of institutional abuse of the Death Penalty - hey, that's part of the reason I'm hesitant about it, even while I think it's ultimately just. But I don't think it can be as simple as "the damage has been done", either in terms of justice itself, or in terms of what the victim can reasonably demand.
For my own part, I still worry principally about an attitude that treats crime and punishment as something wholly left up to the state to deal with, with the victim's role in the process seemingly minimized.
What shows greater value of human life: eliminating the death penalty or enforcing it for murder cases?
Anonymous: "... Frankly, liberals like Jesse Parrish can simply shove their insipid position where the sun doesn't shine, as far as I'm concerned."
Mr Reppert is a "liberal", and he indeed holds to a few insipid positions.
Mr Parrish goes quite a way beyond that; if he's not yet a full-bore leftist, he's certainly walking on the line between leftist and mere "liberal" (*).
====
(*) Most "liberals", as the term is currently used, are "unprincipled leftists". That is, they accept the premises of leftism, but they do not yet accept all the logical entailments of those premises. So, willy-nilly, they make an ungrounded exception, that is, an unprincipled exception, so as to deny this or that logical entailment that they haven't yet accepted. And, of course, when the hard-core leftists decide that it's time to start pushing and agitating for the mainstreaming of one of those entailments that the "liberals" are currently rejecting, the "liberals" *always* cave; for, they already accept the leftist premises, and they have no principle by which to ground their rejection of the logical entailment the leftists are now pushing.
And, lest anyone thing I'm picking on "liberals", the same applies to most "conservatives", other than plugging slightly different values into it, thus: most persons who consider themselves "conservatives" are really "unprincipled liberals". That is, they accept the premises of liberalism, but they do not yet accept all the logical entailments of those premises. ...
Mike Darus: "What shows greater value of human life: eliminating the death penalty or enforcing it for murder cases?"
What a hate-filled question! ;) Welcome to the dark side! :)
Why, next thing you know, someone may notice that I had already hatefully asserted -- quite a while before his implied argument that, as the "damage" has already been done by the murderer, there is no point in seeing that justice is done -- that Mr Parrish doesn't give a damn about actual justice.
But, you can bet your bottom dollar (yours, not his!) that he cares very much about "social justice" -- which is in the same relationship to actual justice that falsehood is to truth.
Ilíon: (*) I'm intentionally mocking "gender inclusive language" by making the bad guy a she.
One Brow: (*) Why is that mockery?
Really? You don't get it?
The supposed men who use "gender inclusive language" -- and it's always either feminized men and academics or the man-hating sort of lesbian who speaks/writes like that -- would rather give birth to a cow (through their own urethra), that to make a hypothetical bad guy a she.
The general rule is: if the hypothetical person's state or status or employment is to be viewed as negative or of a "lower" class or status, than it is a he; but, if positive or of a "higher" class or status, that it is a she. Thus, you will *never* find a "gender inclusive" hypothetical in which the sewer-worker is a she. And, you will increasingly find fewer "gender inclusive" hypotheticals in which the professor of philosophy is a he. Never mind that the vast majority of persons employed in either of those roles are persons-of-penishood.
Rasmus Moller: "For the record; I'm against the execution of CP, but for the (possibility of) the verdict of CP.
I believe we are all unworthy of casting the first stone."
Who is this "we" of whom you speak?
There are two possibilities for the "we" -- any one of us as an individual, or all of us collectively as a society -- and your belief is false in both cases.
Moreover, your argument, were it valid, is also an argument against *all* laws that command us "do this" and "don't do that". For, *all* these laws are implicitly or explicitly backed-up by "the death penalty."
But, unless you are an anarchist, I know that you do not accept that logical entailment of your own argument. Thus, it is not only illogical of you, but it is in fact (now that you have been made aware of the situation) intellectually dishonest of you, to accept/promote the one logical entailment, the one you do like, while rejecting or denegrating the other, the one that you don't like.
Full-blown leftist. Also, it's not a logical entailment, Ilion.
Speaking of criminals, remember all those crimes Loftus admits he committed when he was younger? Theft, assault, etc.?
They are more prominently mentioned in WIRC than in WIBA, but they are still there.
John was a damn fool to put those in print.
Is he so stupid as to realize that some of the victims are still around and are putting two and two together?
Legal Eagle
Ilíon said...
The supposed men who use "gender inclusive language" -- and it's always either feminized men and academics or the man-hating sort of lesbian who speaks/writes like that -- would rather give birth to a cow (through their own urethra), that to make a hypothetical bad guy a she.
Of course, you're fighting the myths of your own fevered imaginaiton again. Carry on.
Mike Darus said...
What shows greater value of human life: eliminating the death penalty or enforcing it for murder cases?
I don't see either as showing a greater respect for life, as long as the alternative of life imprisonment is available. Either way, the erson is removed from society, permanently.
The use of life imprisonment shows greter recognition of the fallibility of our judicial system.
Mike Darus asks, "What shows greater value of human life: eliminating the death penalty or enforcing it for murder cases?"
I have no problem answering that one. Eliminating the death penalty shows the greater value for human life.
I would ask anyone who so blithely supports capital punishment to try this little thought experiment. Put yourself in the place of the executioner. Don't just go through the (mental) motions. Really think about it - take some time. Now ask yourself again. What is your view on the death penalty?
Knowing perfectly well that I sound exactly like Loftus shilling for the OTF, I would say that if after conducting such an experiment you're still in favor, then you haven't really thought it through. Or else you have problems far more serious than what you might think about capital punishment.
B. Prokop,
Of those who have participated in executions who have spoken out, opinions are mixed. I'm willing to credit a defender of capital punishment with having possibly `thought it out' in that sense.
That said, I think that all other things the same - a tricky assumption here, so I'm not sure whether this opinion is important - opposing capital punishment shows a greater value for human life than does endorsing it. But it's a very marginal difference, when the choice is between keeping a person in a permanent cage and killing that person.
Both options suck. The proper goal of a legal system is to make things suck less, where possible.
How about the Death Sentence for the unborn?
They get no trial, no appeal, nothing.
Cry for them, and I would believe your crocidile tears over the death penalty.
One Brow: "I don't see either as showing a greater respect for life, as long as the alternative of life imprisonment is available. Either way, the [p]erson is removed from society, permanently."
Are you from a different planet (or even a different universe)? 'Cause, on this planet, there is no such thing as life imprisonment (*). Moreover, "liberals", following the tuggings of their leftist pupet-masters, ain't to happy with even imprisoning criminals (**).
(*) Well, except for Charles Manson and Sirhan Sirhan.
(**) Well, until the leftists figure out how to criminalize Christianity in the US.
"Of course, you're fighting the myths of your own fevered imaginaiton again. Carry on."
Of course, being a "liberal", you confuse not seeing what's in front of you because you've shut tight your eyes with there being nothing in front of you. You will, no doubt, carry on at this; for, should you ever open your eyes and see, you'll have made the first tentative step toward *gasp* sanity ... and conservatism.
Two things:
1) No one "blithely supports capital punishment" ... well, except for "liberals" as applied to the innocent and inconvenient;
2) "Liberals" tend to be liars .. so, of course one expects one to have made such a blatantly false accusation.
Ilíon said...
'Cause, on this planet, there is no such thing as life imprisonment.
Most US states allow a sentence people to life without parole. I'm not sure what else your claim is supposedly about, if that is not life imprisonment.
Ilíon said...
Of course, being a "liberal", you confuse not seeing what's in front of you because you've shut tight your eyes with there being nothing in front of you.
There are few greater compliments than your disapproval.
Bob said, "I would ask anyone who so blithely supports capital punishment to try this little thought experiment. Put yourself in the place of the executioner." I do not need to try the experiment. I already know that I would not like to be an executioner. This does not settle the issue. It only affirms that Executioner is not a good career path for me (or you). If I were conducting interviews for the job, I would want someone who will do it, but not someone who wants to do it. I was reminded about the officer in "The Green Mile" who purposely did not wet the sponge.
The problem with "Ilion" is he mistakes name-calling and insults for argument. I have yet to hear a single, rationally presented statement from him on this website about anything whatsoever. He starts out by assuming he knows "the truth" and anyone who might not agree with him is blind, a liar, stupid, brainwashed.... hmmm, sound familiar?
I hope, Ilion, that you're not actually trying to convince anyone here of your point of view, 'cause it ain't workin'!
But seriously, getting back to the issue at hand, numerous studies have been published on the psychological effects on the executioners in the killings in Rwanda, Bosnia, and Liberia, etc., and there was found to be significant, almost irreparable damage to the perpetrators of such actions, as well as the obvious harm to the victims.
I'm not saying that executioners in the US aren't decent citizens doing a dirty job, but maybe that is precisely the problem! Does anyone WANT such an occupation to be considered acceptable? I won't speak for the atheists on this blog, but surely the Christians posting here must worry about what killing another human being does to your own soul?
I have spoken to people who, decades later, have been torn apart inside because of legal killing they did in wartime. My own father, 50 years (!!) after WWII, openly wept as he recalled firing on the enemy, and said "I hope I didn't hurt anyone". and this is legitimate force used against a clearly evil foe!!!!
The problem with "B.Prokop" is that he's irrational.
Er, the problem with "B.Prokop" is that he's irrational, and dishonest.
Er, the problem with "B.Prokop" is that he's irrational, and dishonest, and a passive-aggressive hypocrite.
Er, the problem with "B.Prokop" is that he's irrational, and dishonest, and a passive-aggressive "hypocrite" who is engaging in projection.
Er, the problem with "B.Prokop" is that he's irrational, and dishonest, and a passive-aggressive hypocrite who is engaging in "projection" ... and that he imagines throwing a fit when his willfully chosen flaws are publicly examined is a good strategy for deflecting attention away from them.
B.Prokop, who chooses to be intellectually dishonest: "The problem with "Ilion" is he mistakes name-calling and insults for argument. I have yet to hear a single, rationally presented statement from him on this website about anything whatsoever. He starts out by assuming he knows "the truth" and anyone who might not agree with him is blind, a liar, stupid, brainwashed.... hmmm, sound familiar?"
This assertion is false. It is willfully made, knowing it to be false -- it is a lie and its asserter is a liar. This statement is a prime example both of hypocrisy and of "projection" -- as can be seen in this very thread, for what he asserts of me is false with respet to me, yet true with respect to himself -- and its asserter is hypocrite engaging in "projection". While this statement is slightly aggressive, it is mostly passive-aggressive -- the sissy doesn't even have the balls to state most of his lies in direct terms (*) -- and its asserter is a passive-aggressive hypocrite engaging in "projection".
(*) I know, as a matter of reason, that intellectual dishonesty -- hypocrisy, that is to-the-core lying, with respect to reason itself (perhaps one ought to say 'Reason') -- is the worst of the intellectual sins, and is generally at the root of all the others. But, sometimes, as a being who is not only rational, but also emotional and social, I can be tempted to accede to the proposition that being a pussy is the worst intellectual sin.
"There are few greater compliments than your disapproval."
Isn't it odd that some persons cannot see that that street runs two ways?
... Probably the main reason that most "liberals" (and likely most evangelical 'atheists', also) cannot see that the prior-referenced street runs in two directions is that, in their heart of hearts, they do not believe that the persons who reject their (silly and false) beliefs and pseudo-arguments are really persons. There is a certain degree of solipcism to "liberalism" (and to what passes for atheism these days).
Bob: Ilion never presents careful arguments, substituting insulting rhetoric in its place.
Ilion: [Dedicates a comment to insulting Bob while denying the charge.]
Life imitating art imitating life imitating art imitating...
But seriously, getting back to the issue at hand, numerous studies have been published on the psychological effects on the executioners in the killings in Rwanda, Bosnia, and Liberia, etc., and there was found to be significant, almost irreparable damage to the perpetrators of such actions, as well as the obvious harm to the victims.
Pardon my bluntness, but aren't those places ten kinds of screwed up to begin with?
I agree with the worries mentioned with regards to the effect on individual humans - and I would add, culture in general - re: execution, particularly from a Catholic perspective. But so far the take-away point seems to be among people in this thread that executions are at times justifiable, but there are secondary worries to consider.
Ilíon said...
Isn't it odd that some persons cannot see that that street runs two ways?
Who would that be?
I expect manly macho men to thrive on criticism, to the point where they see no need to return it, but rather wear it as a badge of honor.
No, wait, that was real men. Manly macho men are much more likely to return insult for insult, not being the type that allow anyone to think they have been bested. Not because they are weak, but because a manly macho man can never allow the appearance of being weak, becasue they are so strong that the appearance of being strong is really, really important. Or something.
Ilíon:
"I believe we are all unworthy of casting the first stone."
Who is this "we" of whom you speak?
There are two possibilities for the "we" -- any one of us as an individual, or all of us collectively as a society -- and your belief is false in both cases.
Moreover, your argument, were it valid, is also an argument against *all* laws that command us "do this" and "don't do that". For, *all* these laws are implicitly or explicitly backed-up by "the death penalty."
But, unless you are an anarchist, I know that you do not accept that logical entailment of your own argument. Thus, it is not only illogical of you, but it is in fact (now that you have been made aware of the situation) intellectually dishonest of you, to accept/promote the one logical entailment, the one you do like, while rejecting or denegrating the other, the one that you don't like."
Rasmus:
Yes to both definitions of "We".
It's not an argument against *all* laws, it's an argument against execution of CP. I think laws are backed up by the threat of incarceration. If someone is sufficiently dangerous, we might have to risk killing her while trying to incarcerate her.
No, I am not an anarchist, though I think our laws should never interfere with our liberties, except to protect said liberties of our neighbors (and to some degree of animals).
It might be intellectually dishonest of me (or I might just be confused), but I don't think so. Stealing a quote from Steve Brown: "The essence of Christian, intellectual maturity is a high tolerance for ambiguity."
When "We" are metering out Justice and Mercy on our fellow images of God, "We" are basically playing God, and we are close to blasphemy. Most of the time, we just have to do the best we can with what little we know, and accept that it won't be perfect. Justice and Mercy will never be on a simple, straightforward form. IMO this is why we should never execute CP.
"One Brow":
Did safeguarding other people in society even come up in that work?
Rasmus:
Well yes, the most significant point is to safeguard innocent people in society from punishment or reform.
I think you might have had something else in mind with your question; do you think it's permissible to impose punishment or reform on _innocent_ people in order to obtain deterrence or safeguarding?
Rasmus: "I think you might have had something else in mind with your question; do you think it's permissible to impose punishment or reform on _innocent_ people in order to obtain deterrence or safeguarding?"
And, more importantly, if not, why not? What's he gonna do, appeal to justice?
But, appealing justice is just another way of appealing to a transcendant and universally applicable 'ought' and 'ought-not'.
Rasmus Møller said...
I think you might have had something else in mind with your question;
Hopefully, you thought the safeguarding of the innocnet from men who have conducted crimes, or something similar.
do you think it's permissible to impose punishment or reform on _innocent_ people in order to obtain deterrence or safeguarding?
Your questions is moot, since imposing punishment/reform on innocent people does not deter nor safeguard.
Once Brow: "Your questions is moot, since imposing punishment/reform on innocent people does not deter nor safeguard."
One is constantly left wondering what universe you really are from, 'cause you sure ain't from this one.
One Brow:
Hopefully, you thought the safeguarding of the innocent from men who have conducted crimes, or something similar.
Rasmus:
I will dig for some CSL quotes addressing that. However, who gets to define what "safeguarding the innocent" implies? To me, it sounds like an excuse to take away the liberties of innocent and criminals alike "for their own safety".
One Brow:
Your questions is moot, since imposing punishment/reform on innocent people does not deter nor safeguard.
Rasmus quoting C.S. Lewis:
"We demand of a deterrent not whether it is just but whether it will deter."
"If the justification of exemplary punishment is not to be based on desert but solely on its efficacy as a deterrent, it is not absolutely necessary that the man we punish should even have committed the crime. The deterrent effect demands that the public should draw the moral, 'If we do such an act we shall suffer like that man.' The punishment of a man actually guilty whom the public think innocent will not have the desired effect; the punishment of a man actually innocent will, provided the public think him guilty."
Ilíon said...
One is constantly left wondering what universe you really are from, 'cause you sure ain't from this one.
The planet where we jail the dangerous to safeguard the innocent may indeed not be the planet Ilion inhabits. Of course, that leaves the question of which planet is better populated.
Rasmus Møller said...
However, who gets to define what "safeguarding the innocent" implies? To me, it sounds like an excuse to take away the liberties of innocent and criminals alike "for their own safety".
I believe Benjamin Franklin addressed that adequately. Taking away the liberties of the innocent does not increase their safety, even when increasing their safety is the excuse used.
C.S. Lewis
The punishment of a man actually guilty whom the public think innocent will not have the desired effect; the punishment of a man actually innocent will, provided the public think him guilty.
Deterance applies to both those who have not committed crimes and to those that have. If you punish the A for a crime committed by B, B will feel emboldened, not deterred. If this happens regularly, it eventually becomes knows punishment is random, and deterrence fails completely. True deterrence requires accuracy, in the long run.
September 16, 2011 1:07 AM
One Brow,
You objections do not seem to be directed at what I intended to talk about; you may be having the same experience, I guess. Nevertheless, some more clarifying CSL quotes from the highly recommended essay "The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment" ( www.angelfire.com/pro/lewiscs/humanitarian.html ) :
"If we turn from the curative to the deterrent justification of punishment we shall find the new theory even more alarming. the deterrent justification of punishment we shall find the new theory even more alarming. When you punish a man in terrorem, make of him an ‘example’ to others, you are admittedly using him as a means to an end; someone else’s end. This, in itself, would be a very wicked thing to do. On the [retributive] classical theory of Punishment it was of course justified on the ground that the man deserved it. That was assumed to be established before any question of ‘making him an example arose’ arose. You then, as the saying is, killed two birds with one stone; in the process of giving him what he deserved you set an example to others. But take away desert and the whole morality of the punishment disappears. Why, in Heaven’s name, am I to be sacrificed to the good of society in this way?—unless, of course, I deserve it.
. . . .
According to the Humanitarian theory, to punish a man because he deserves it, and as much as he deserves, is mere revenge, and, therefore, barbarous and immoral. It is maintained that the only legitimate motives for punishing are the desire to deter others by example or to mend the criminal. When this theory is combined, as frequently happens, with the belief that all crime is more or less pathological, the idea of mending tails off into that of healing or curing and punishment becomes therapeutic. Thus it appears at first sight that we have passed from the harsh and self-righteous notion of giving the wicked their deserts to the charitable and enlightened one of tending the psychologically sick. What could be more amiable? One little point which is taken for granted in this theory needs, however, to be made explicit. The things done to the criminal, even if they are called cures, will be just as compulsory as they were in the old days when we called them punishments. If a tendency to steal can be cured by psychotherapy, the thief will no doubt be forced to undergo the treatment. Otherwise, society cannot continue.
(continues)
Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. . . . Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level with those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals. But to be punished, however severely, because we have deserved it, because we ‘ought to have known better’, is to be treated as a human person made in God’s image.
. . . .
[I]f crime and disease are to be regarded as the same thing, it follows that any state of mind which our masters choose to call ‘disease’ can be treated as a crime; and compulsorily cured. It will be vain to plead that states of mind which displease government need not always involve moral turpitude and do not therefore always deserve forfeiture of liberty. For our masters will not be using the concepts of Desert and Punishment but those of disease and cure. We know that one school of psychology already regards religion as a neurosis. When this particular neurosis becomes inconvenient to government, what is to hinder government from proceeding to ‘cure’ it? Such ‘cure’ will, of course, be compulsory; but under the Humanitarian theory it will not be called by the shocking name of Persecution. . . . Even if the treatment is painful, even if it is life-long, even if it is fatal, that will be only a regrettable accident; the intention was purely therapeutic. In ordinary medicine there were painful operations and fatal operations; so in this. But because they are ‘treatment’, not punishment, they can be criticized only by fellow-experts and on technical grounds, never by men as men and on grounds of justice.
This is why I think it essential to oppose the Humanitarian theory of punishment, root and branch, wherever we encounter it. It carries on its front a semblance of mercy which is wholly false. That is how it can deceive men of good will. . . . The older view was that mercy ‘tempered’ justice, or (on the highest level of all) that mercy and justice had met and kissed. The essential act of mercy was to pardon; and pardon in its very essence involves the recognition of guilt and ill-desert in the recipient. If crime is only a disease which needs cure, not sin which deserves punishment, it cannot be pardoned. How can you pardon a man for having a gumboil or a club foot? . . . This means that you start being ‘kind’ to people before you have considered their rights, and then force upon them supposed kindnesses which no one but you will recognize as kindnesses and which the recipient will feel as abominable cruelties. You have overshot the mark. Mercy, detached from Justice, grows unmerciful. That is the important paradox.
One Brow: "The planet where we jail the dangerous to safeguard the innocent may indeed not be the planet Ilion inhabits."
More dishonesty, for (once again) there is no such thing (*) as life imprisonment.
Moreover, when the leftists start pulling your "liberal" puppet strings, you will find a reason to oppose "harsh prison terms" -- though, I suspect, ultimately, you and your kind will be copasetic with "harsh prison terms" for conservatives and Christians.
In one of these recent threads, Mr Parrish has already let slip his leftist opposition to imprisoning criminals.
(*) except in Cuba and China and such places; and then, it applies not to the predators, but the opponents of the regime.
"Nevertheless, some more clarifying CSL quotes from the highly recommended essay "The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment""
Several times, I've posted links to, and quoted from, that very essay here on Mr Reppert's blog.
These leftish people will ignore the reasoning, as they always ignore reasoning which goes where they do not want to go.
Then, having ignored the argument(s) they do not want to see and the conclusions they do not want to acknowledge, they will claim that no argument was given, and that the conclusion was merely assumed. It's just another aspect of their intellectual dishonesty.
Rasmus Møller said...
You objections do not seem to be directed at what I intended to talk about; you may be having the same experience, I guess.
My experience is that you want to focus the conversation on three offered reasons for imprisonment of criminals (deterance, reform, dessert) while completely bypassing the most obvious one (separation from the general public). What's your experience?
Ilíon said...
More dishonesty, for (once again) there is no such thing (*) as life imprisonment.
Said while peoople in the US are actually serving such sentences. Indeed, we live on different planets!
... though, I suspect, ultimately, you and your kind will be copasetic with "harsh prison terms" for conservatives and Christians.
Your'e always good for laugh.
Ilion probably also believes in the "FEMA Concentration Camps" that the Tea Partiers are always warning us about!
"Ilion probably also believes in the "FEMA Concentration Camps" that the Tea Partiers are always warning us about!"
The Tea Partiers say nothing of the sort ... so, this Anonymouse is a liar.
No one has any reason, much less a valid reason, even to imagine that I believe such a thing, so this Anonymouse is irrational (and illogical).
This Anonymouse probably kidnaps babies and eats them. Also, he probably rapes them. And in no particular order. -- If we hear even a peep of objection to those statements from the Anonymouse, or any of the other fools who frequent VR's blog, that will be simply a demonstration of their intellectual (and moral) hypocrisy.
One Brow:
My experience is that you want to focus the conversation on three offered reasons for imprisonment of criminals (deterrence, reform, desert) while completely bypassing the most obvious one (separation from the general public). What's your experience?
Rasmus:
My experience is that you seem too focused on one specific type of punishment and its added benefits (which you call "reasons").
We may not disagree very much... - except perhaps on what are justifiable, necessary reasons and what are added benefits. If you are "separated from the general public", you can no longer steal apples (added benefit), however most people would not find the punishment fitting for that crime.
It might be that by "criminals" you imply "people whose crime makes them deserving of prison". In that case our argument might be moot. But I think it crucial that you establish guilt first, then choose among the possibly _deserved_ punishments the one that incurs the highest added benefit (or smallest loss) for society and the criminal.
Rasmus Møller said...
My experience is that you seem too focused on one specific type of punishment and its added benefits (which you call "reasons").
I'm just trying to make sure it is not removed from the conversation. It's very common to say "you can base a system on principles A, B, or C; A and B don't work; therefore C is the basis". It's almost as common that principle D is also important to the the system and is overlooked.
We may not disagree very much... - except perhaps on what are justifiable, necessary reasons and what are added benefits. If you are "separated from the general public", you can no longer steal apples (added benefit), however most people would not find the punishment fitting for that crime.
The crime would be "stole apples", I don't think anyone is suggesting punishment for crimes not yet committed. On the other hand, if a person is willing to commit arson to further his goals will be likely to commit arson again in furtherance of those goals.
One Brow,
thanks for the exchange and the chance to elaborate on the subject.
The school textbook from which I must teach uses King James VI & I's hanging of a pickpocket caught in a crowd without trial as an example of harsh rule. However, had I been one of the folks in the crowd who worked long hours for low pay (as was the case for most folks alive in 1603) and saw the scene, I'd probably have shouted myself hoarse with "Long live the King!" and cheered his justice.
Petty theft wasn't a prank in those days. It was living off the labor of others, and ruining them in the process.
Post a Comment