|
Dead Reckoning posted:It isn't hypocritical at all. For example, a person might object to a parent locking their child in a room and only letting them out briefly a few times per day to eat, exercise, and use the restroom, while at the same time accepting the right of the state to impose such a penalty on someone duly convicted of murder. Life being sacred isn't an absolute, just a default presumption unless forfeited. What is even the meaning of the word 'sacred' if it can be forfeited?
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 08:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 20:01 |
|
|
hakimashou posted:Treat others the way you would be treated. So, in other words, killing isn't murder if you're killing someone who you know to be in favor of killing, like say a Death Penalty advocate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 10:04
|
|
|
You have stolen a loaf of bread. You have therefore forfeited your right to personal property and will now live as a penniless vagrant.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 11:01
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:You have stolen a loaf of bread. You have therefore forfeited your right to personal property and will now live as a penniless vagrant. You go on stealing loaves of bread because there is no further property to deprive you of 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 11:37
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
hakimashou posted:No consideration given to justice? I don't see why when "Justice" is just your subjective opinion on what is fair. You want punishments to reflect the emotive reaction you have to a crime. I mean, how can I argue against this: hakimashou posted:
beyond saying "Says you"? You believe bad guys "deserve" to be killed. Presumably humanely. I've heard other people get really creative about how bad guys should be executed and how "humane" executions are not justice - bad guys are supposed to suffer after all. What makes their justice less vaild than yours? Personally I don't give a poo poo about what people deserve, just what they need. The law should be dispassionate and objective and based around rehabilitation, deterrence and protecting the public Not pandering to people's bloodlust.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 12:32
|
|
|
I've worked a lot with Finnish prisoners and ex-cons and we have a recidivism rate of around ~30% for first time offenders, including murderers. Contrary to popular american belief, most murders don't happen because man bad, man want kill.Here, for manslaughter you do maybe 3-5 years, murder (defined as homicide carried in a specially brutal manner or with forethought) you do ~9 years. First time offenders sit around half, young first timers around a third. Here's the catch: during this time they will learn anger management, cognitive skills, get treatment for possible mental/substance abuse issues and if possible learn a trade or get a degree. They will be provided a social worker who will help them find an apartment and fill out unemployment forms to avoid them having to commit crime to afford rent/food etc while searching for a job. Only certain types of jobs will ask for your criminal record. Mostly things that involve children, drugs or especially valuable corporate secrets. It's not that we don't get people whining about the short sentences or saying justice hasn't been served. But the truth is, unless you wanna just kill everyone or lock them up for life. These people will be your neighbors. It's in everyones interest to make sure they're as well rounded as possible with hope and prospects once they get out. A few years of losing your personal freedom is a lot harsher than you would think. It fucks up your job, your relationships even with your kids, it makes you more anxious to be around people and less able to express yourself. Turn off your PC and limit yourself to your apartment (and your balcony a few hours a day). Call your kids a few times a week. Do this for five years and see if it feels like a punishment or not. The US criminal justice system is completely based on the notion of proportional revenge being justice, as long as you don't call it revenge and it will completely poison the well of any discussion re: death penalty. Death penalty needs to go, but it needs to go as part of a complete ground up rework of the system. edit: We have repeat murderers obviously. But very rarely, and mostly connected to organized crime. We could warp the entire system to work around these people and gently caress up a good chunk of society doing so, or we can simply accept that like the mythical welfare or voter fraud, sometimes it's not very good to throw the baby away with the bathwater. Kehveli fucked around with this message at 14:03 on Feb 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 13:32
|
|
|
Has anyone here actually been to an American Jail? I realize that I'm opening myself up to an insane amount of criticism, but the jail "experience" is heartbreaking, difficult on your SOUL and just generally the worst thing that could possibly happen to you in your lifetime. I was only in jail for 5 days, and I almost killed myself. It's not funny like Orange is the new Black. You're stripped of all your clothes, your dignity, and people with guns and badges treat you like garbage 24/7. Other inmates threaten you for dumb poo poo like changing the tv channel. Your next-door neighbor prisoner has a crazy nosebleed that leaves blood everywhere and you have to clean it up. Guards constantly use their power to make you feel small and make you feel like vermin. How Is killing someone the RIGHT way, any worse than 40-60 years of that treatment?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
Dog Fat Man Chaser posted:Ok, I'm getting a little frustrated with your interpretation of Kant. You're, ironically, trying to let there be exceptions to rules here, which isn't how the CI works; you're misunderstanding the categorical imperative and maxims here. The CI doesn't let you permit certain circumstances that would otherwise be forbidden. Basically, if you're attaching an "if" to it, it's not a maxim anymore. "You can kill people" would be a maxim. "You can kill people IF they do X, Y, or Z" isn't. "You can steal" would be a maxim, "You can steal IF you're hungry" isn't. Either an act is ok, or it isn't, and there's not a set of circumstances that suddenly makes an otherwise forbidden thing permissible. Either it's morally permissible to kill people, or it isn't. If you create the maxim of "Murderers can be killed," you're no longer universalizing. Try it out by swapping other people in there. "Black people can be killed." "Women can be killed." "Jaywalkers can be killed." The problem becomes obvious. Also why do you have to generalize from murderers to people, but not from people to all life? There's definitely categories of life everyone thinks can be killed, there's got to be some sort of mechanism that lets us say "Things in this group should be killed, things in that group shouldn't, things in that group are permissible to kill". quote:Let's we take it further, the categorical imperative absolutely forbids killing. "It is permissible to kill" is absolutely not universalizable. The idea of killing relies on people being alive. If killing were universalized, there would be no one left to kill, and so the idea negates itself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
DoggPickle posted:Has anyone here actually been to an American Jail? I realize that I'm opening myself up to an insane amount of criticism, but the jail "experience" is heartbreaking, difficult on your SOUL and just generally the worst thing that could possibly happen to you in your lifetime. I was only in jail for 5 days, and I almost killed myself. Well, because when you are dead, you are dead. I doubt the people on death row would remain there if given the chance to take life in prison instead. And being against the death penalty doesn't mean being for our current prison system.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:Well, because when you are dead, you are dead. I doubt the people on death row would remain there if given the chance to take life in prison instead. I think 80% of them would choose death over lifetime imprisonment. Can we ask them? Has there ever been a poll?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
DoggPickle posted:I think 80% of them would choose death over lifetime imprisonment. Can we ask them? Has there ever been a poll? It's almost like we should simultaneously eliminate the death penalty and enact sweeping prison reform of a system built on slavery. 🤔
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
stone cold posted:It's almost like we should simultaneously eliminate the death penalty and enact sweeping prison reform of a system built on slavery. Nah, let's just assume that everyone wants death and has no hope for their future. It's easier to justify killing people in captivity to myself that way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
Can I simultaneously be for total prison reform and also still support the death penalty? Everyone should have much shorter sentences. Three strikes is dumb. We need better policies that try to actually reform people instead of treating them like poo poo until they turn into poo poo. That's just obvious. But can we straight-up kill serial killers and child-molesters. Sure
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
DoggPickle posted:Can I simultaneously be for total prison reform and also still support the death penalty? Everyone should have much shorter sentences. Three strikes is dumb. We need better policies that try to actually reform people instead of treating them like poo poo until they turn into poo poo. That's just obvious. But can we straight-up kill serial killers and child-molesters. Sure Why I mean are these people not human? Have they forfeited their human rights somehow?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Why Yes. Absolutely . They forfeited their human rights when they hurt someone else. I believe in the backwards golden rule. Don't do unto others any crap that you wouldn't want done to you? And people who murder and it's completely obvious and provable, sick people who are going to continue to be sick and we're all going to keep paying for their incarceration, just kill em? It's cheaper, more economical and in the long run, it's actually more humane than decades of Incarceration.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
DoggPickle posted:Yes. Absolutely . They forfeited their human rights when they hurt someone else. So I've been looking for the purple rule since yours is very stupid. It seems to be "don't have sex." So since I want to have sex, I'll be breaking the opposite of the golden rule, so have your parents, have you considered killing them?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
What percentage of murders do you reckon have a completely obvious guilty party and who would you trust to accurately make that determination?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:So I've been looking for the purple rule since yours is very stupid. It seems to be "don't have sex." So since I want to have sex, I'll be breaking the opposite of the golden rule, so have your parents, have you considered killing them?  I know that my post was a bit rambling, but in a general context, at least it makes sense . I don't even know how to reply to this word-vomit because it's incomprehensible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
twodot posted:I don't know anything about Kant, but this doesn't make any sense. Presuming you believe that locking up criminals is acceptable, but that locking up random innocent people isn't use whatever it is that allows you to make that distinction to justify killing people who have committed murder, and not other people. Yeah, I left a lot of Kant's system out there because I'm not terribly interested in teaching a course on it. There's definitely more to it than just "is this act universalizable", there's also questions of using people as ends, whether it respects their free will, and lots of poo poo on duty. I was more just upset to see even that part being sorely misused. To your example, "People can be punished for their crimes" is universalizable, nothing about punishment in a general sense is self-negating, and "people can be put in prisons / isolated" also works, for the same reason. It'd be a hosed up awful horrible world if we actually universalized those, but it's not literally impossible. Killing people is. To your other point, we generalize to people because those are the moral objects worthy of consideration. Kant stopped his system at people because he didn't have animals as moral objects, they held the same status as things. They were effectively, to him, irrational objects that just so happened to also be animate. So there's your mechanism, basically, is it a moral object? I realize that's intensely unsatisfying an answer, but hey that was a lot of philosophy's treatment of animals at the time  Also I should probably be clear, I'm not defending any of this system as correct or right, it has some problems, I just don't like seeing it used inaccurately. Ironically enough Kant himself seemed to be totally okay with the death penalty, which I've always seen as a pretty drat big self-contradiction, and there's been some good writing to that effect, basically that he arrived at a bad conclusion given his own premises. Dog Fat Man Chaser fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Feb 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:What percentage of murders do you reckon have a completely obvious guilty party and who would you trust to accurately make that determination? I think that the burden of evidence is SO HIGH that 99% of convicted murderers definitely did it. That 1% doubt is what makes it so crazy. You'd rather let 100 guilty people go than imprison one innocent man.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Why should they remain alive? I'd be totally cool with the death penalty if the law also stipulated that if anyone is later proven innocent than the judge, prosecutor and every member of the jury that convicted the innocent person are executed for murder in turn.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
Dog Fat Man Chaser posted:Ok, I'm getting a little frustrated with your interpretation of Kant. You're, ironically, trying to let there be exceptions to rules here, which isn't how the CI works; you're misunderstanding the categorical imperative and maxims here. The CI doesn't let you permit certain circumstances that would otherwise be forbidden. Basically, if you're attaching an "if" to it, it's not a maxim anymore. "You can kill people" would be a maxim. "You can kill people IF they do X, Y, or Z" isn't. "You can steal" would be a maxim, "You can steal IF you're hungry" isn't. Either an act is ok, or it isn't, and there's not a set of circumstances that suddenly makes an otherwise forbidden thing permissible. Either it's morally permissible to kill people, or it isn't. If you create the maxim of "Murderers can be killed," you're no longer universalizing. Try it out by swapping other people in there. "Black people can be killed." "Women can be killed." "Jaywalkers can be killed." The problem becomes obvious. Kant was hugely in favor of the death penalty for murderers though... To Kant, executing them was a duty we had to them. The categorical imperative doesnt absolutely forbid killing, it obliges us to kill people who commit murder. According to the categorical imperative, we act wrongly if we don't execute murderers, because we are obliged to treat them as ends in themselves, and so if they choose to live by the maxim of killing, we have to respect their choice and execute them in turn. If we didn't do that, we'd be doing something worse, we'd be treating them as animals or children, less than fully people, refusing to accept that they were rational moral actors capable of making decisions with consequences. One of the most difficult Kantian positions is that capital punishment isnt an obligation to the victim of the crime, but to the criminal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
bitterandtwisted posted:I don't see why when "Justice" is just your subjective opinion on what is fair. You want punishments to reflect the emotive reaction you have to a crime. Not bad guys, people guilty of murder.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 00:27
|
|
|
Who gives a poo poo about Kant 2k17?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Why Kant believed that if we didn't execute them we'd be treating them as less than human, without human dignity or the right to autonomy. I agree with him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Who gives a poo poo about Kant 2k17? He didnt get less right over time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
DoggPickle posted:Yes. Absolutely . They forfeited their human rights when they hurt someone else. That's not how human rights work. Like, are you aware of the existence of war crimes tribunals? Also, if anybody who hurts anybody ever should be put to death, are we gonna start putting executioners outside of small claims court? Are we gonna start executing people for misdemeanor assault? Are we gonna execute children?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
stone cold posted:That's not how human rights work. This is basically the dumbest argument that I've ever read. When people are mean or evil to other people, when they're scary or violent. it's quite obvious, even though it may be difficult to put down in words. I don't believe that any "Drug" crimes are real crimes. I think that violent people are OBVIOUSLY violent lovely people and they should be the only ones in jail. But absolutely any person who hits another person is a crazy rear end in a top hat and they need some jail.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
DoggPickle posted:This is basically the dumbest argument that I've ever read. When people are mean or evil to other people, when they're scary or violent. it's quite obvious, even though it may be difficult to put down in words. Emphasizing the punitive nature of the criminal justice system over the rehabilitative nature merely backs some long hundreds of years of an institution built on slavery. Is all evil necessarily violence and is all violence necessarily evil? Were the architects of the CDO recession necessarily violent in the manner in which they conducted their crimes, and was the way they caused harm amplified over an entire populace more or less impactful than one murder? Also, what's your stance on punching nazis and do you think that all mentally ill people are predisposed to violence? Certainly if violence is only done by "crazy assholes," then are people who commit violence not therefore criminally responsible for their actions and should be remanded into a psychiatric hospital rather than into jail? Do you believe in the execution of the mentally ill, and would you support overturning precedent for diminished capacity arguments? Is somebody who has made their money on the back of selling cocaine, like a drug lord, similar to some poor kid who's arrested for possession, and is there room for nuance in the term "drug crimes?" Is violence never a cold and calculated move?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
The real problem with the death penalty as implemented is the error rate. It's unacceptably high and errors made in the system can't be reversed, because the people who have been harmed by the error are dead. In theory I can agree that certain crimes perhaps should be punishable by death, but the justice system as it exists is too imprecise to dole that extreme punishment out with 100% accuracy. If we agree executing innocent people is wrong, the most moral thing to do under the constraints of the rule of law is to not execute anyone. It's preferable to keep 99 murderers alive in prison than to execute 100 people and have one be innocent. If you agree killing innocent people is wrong and should be avoided it's really the only option. Whether or not the death penalty would be moral in a system where we could have 100% surety of guilt before choosing the punishment is a whole other discussion I'm not qualified to have, but whether or not executing innocent people is bad is easy to decide: yes, it is bad. Also murderers have pretty low recidivism rates, based on what I know about it. Most of the time murders are committed by people who are just pissed off at one person, not eager to murder any person they see. If you want to argue public safety executing child molesters is probably a better tack to take.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
It really doesn't have to be theoretical, you can limit it to cases where guilt is absolutely certain and the crime is sufficiently heinous. A perfect example is Dylan Roof and things like that. Orlando night club if they were caught alive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
The Golden Rule and Eye for an Eye are actually the same thing, just the former is prescriptive, (naively?)optimistic and proactive, and the latter is reactive, punitive and cynical.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
For the people who support the death penalty. The death penalty is now legal in your society. You are wrongfully convicted of murder. You are now on death row. Do you still support the death penalty?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
Surely it wouldn't happen to me! I'm
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
You can't guillotine the rich if the death penalty is banned. Checkmate, liberals.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 03:39
|
|
|
What about if you were rightfully convicted of murder?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:What about if you were rightfully convicted of murder? The death penalty is now legal in society. You are rightfully convicted of murder. You are on death row. Do you still support the death penalty?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 04:10
|
|
|
T8R posted:The death penalty is now legal in society. You are rightfully convicted of murder. You are on death row. Yes
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
Excellent, now answer the first question.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 04:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 20:01 |
|
|
T8R posted:Excellent, now answer the first question. If I was wrongfully convicted of murder I would probably oppose the justice system's implementation of the death penalty, which I pretty much already do. But, I wouldn't believe it was morally wrong to execute people guilty of murder. Two different issues in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 04:23
|
|