|
Adar posted:Camus is wrong - there are plenty of killers who have done this. For that matter ISIS routinely puts exactly this on Youtube. One might dispute the value or utility of a justice that would respond to say, theft, by making no effort to repay the person who is stolen from, but instead takes something of equal value from the thief, and says everything is settled.
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 00:42 |
|
|
Caros posted:Really, you don't see why the justice system needs the ability to correct its mistakes in the inevitable instances where it discovers them? The death penalty eliminates any possibility of later exoneration and release, it is entirely possible that a person sentenced to life in prison may not be exonerated, but it is absolutely certain that a person killed will never be. I'd rather we leave open that chance. I don't think the justice system is capable of correcting its mistakes even without the death penalty, there is no way to begin to justly compensate someone for the damage 30 years in prison will do.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
Caros posted:I agree wholeheartedly that we can't fully correct this sort of mistake. I don't think there is any way to justly compensate someone for the damage five years in prison would do, let alone thirty. Does that mean that we shouldn't try? Or that we should just leave them in prison if we find out that they are innocent? No, but if part of the argument against the death penalty is that you can't correct the error if it's found out that someone who was executed is innocent, that argument would also have to apply to a lot of other punishments, which are also similarly uncorrectable, yet it is not generally used against anything except the death penalty. Sharkie posted:Yes it can. You can end it by letting them out of prison. That ends future prison time, it does nothing for the years already taken.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
Pohl posted:I don't know, somehow the death penalty cases seem different. Why would that be? You can argue that the death penalty is both inefficient and ineffective, there are a lot of good arguments against it, but that there is an irrefutable like between it and other punishments is precisely what I am having trouble understanding, you're going to need to explain why.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
Caros posted:Such as? The defining feature of the death penalty that we are discussing is the fact that you can't even make an attempt at restitution or recompense in any form. You can't give them money, or vindicate their name or do anything to give meaningful relief to the person because they are dead. Well, you could posthumously vindicate someone's name as easily in death as you could in life, if not more easily, as people are often wont to think better of the dead. But how does money fix the kind of prison sentence you would get in lieu of the death penalty? What can you realistically do to make that better? I don't see why making the attempt makes it any better, trying and failing does nothing but salve the conscience of the person trying, it does nothing for the person in need of restitution. Sharkie posted:You're equating revoked with stopped. Death is uniquely irrevocable because you can't end death. You can end a prison sentence. But you cannot revoke it. Thus it is not uniquely irrevocable. That is entirely the point.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
Pohl posted:So are you saying if we mistakenly jail someone for 30 years, or we mistakenly put them to death, it is the same thing? So why bother fixing anything, because nothing loving matters? Is that what you are saying? I am saying that there are good reasons to withdraw the death penalty from general use, which could produce demonstrable and marked improvements to the justice system. However, the idea that we are somehow significantly ethically better for not killing people and instead merely irreparably ruining their lives with long term imprisonment, is an indulgent fantasy, both are so far beyond the pale that the distinction seems rather moot. Neither can be made amends for, and 'making an attempt' in the latter case counts for nothing. Save perhaps to make you feel better.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 00:42 |
|
|
Sharkie posted:It is better not to kill an innocent person than to kill them = an indulgent fantasy. Got it. Go tell people who are working to release wrongfully imprisoned people and their clients that it counts for nothing. This is some seriously laughable thinking here. It's almost like some people care more about maintaining an internally consistent faux-logical argument than helping people! "It is better not to kill an innocent person than to kill them" isn't the argument. That would be the argument for freeing people who have already been wrongfully convicted, if we are discussing the abolition of the death penalty in general, your choice is between decades of what amounts to torture, or death, because the former is far better than the latter, apparently.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2015 00:25
|
|