Lets talk about how fucked up and shitty the Death Penalty is

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Lets talk about how fucked up and shitty the Death Penalty is

Infinite Karma: Oct 23, 2004; Good as dead

hakimashou posted:

Does he deserve to be punished for depriving his wife of her right to be alive?

What's the purpose of the punishment? Deterrence? Rehabilitation? Restitution? Protection of society from future crimes?

I'm sure all of the above, but the question is really what penalty best serves those ends. What about killing him is a better punishment than locking him up forever, or torturing him forever, or making him into a slave laborer? Any of those are as morally repugnant as murdering him, if not less.

# ¿ Mar 12, 2017 17:42

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 9, 2024 21:48

Infinite Karma: Oct 23, 2004; Good as dead

hakimashou posted:

I'd say he does deserve to be punished because he did something wrong. I don't think it would be wrong to give him the death penalty for it.

It's not morally repugnant to execute a murderer. As above, the death penalty for murderers has virtues like exact proportionality to the crime. It also fulfills the golden rule or the categorical imperative.

In utilitarian terms, it is as good as a deterrent as other sever penalties, and it absolutely prevents recidivism.

This answered exactly none of the questions you responded to.

What does anyone gain by executing a murderer? I don't care about the morality of it, for this purpose, just explain what is gained by killing him instead of letting him go. Metaphysical considerations like the categorical imperative don't count, there are no brownie points for self-consistency. What do I, Infinite Karma, gain by implementing the policy of executing murderers, over a policy that is similarly severe, but not irrevocable?

I don't think we gain anything from capital punishment. The victim who was murdered gets no restitution or comfort. The criminal has no chance to rehabilitate. Deterrence has already failed, he committed the crime. The only thing gained is that we are protected from him killing people in the future. So as long as we are protected from the criminal, shouldn't we choose a penalty that offers more in other areas? Consider it a bonus that there's less moral hazard than state-sponsored killing.

Unless you truly think that killing is a positive for its own sake?

# ¿ Mar 13, 2017 21:12

Infinite Karma: Oct 23, 2004; Good as dead

hakimashou posted:

I don't know that anyone would get anything out of it, I just don't think it would be wrong to do.

That's pretty loving faint praise for a policy of intentionally killing people.

# ¿ Mar 14, 2017 03:20

Infinite Karma: Oct 23, 2004; Good as dead

There is the "beyond a shadow of a doubt" evidentiary standard that isn't used in the U.S., which is stricter than "beyond a reasonable doubt."

It wouldn't be impossible to codify a law that said the death penalty requires a higher evidentiary standard as well as aggravating circumstances.

(I still believe the death penalty is pointless, but if we're going to have it, reducing innocent people being executed is still good.)

# ¿ Mar 19, 2017 11:55

Infinite Karma: Oct 23, 2004; Good as dead

bitterandtwisted posted:

Where is it used?
Wound't that result in every case being tried under the 'beyond shadow of a doubt' standard because to do otherwise would be to admit the conviction was unsafe?

Do they also have a "lovely" evidentiary standard where you get community service for murder because they're really not convinced you did it?

E: what would be an example of a case that, to you, passes the 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard but not 'beyond shadow of a doubt'?

i don't know if the standard is legally used anywhere, because it's not going to be achieved in most cases. With the nature of evidence and testimony, it's easy for there to be an unlikely (but still not insane) doubt. It's mostly philosophical wanking, because in any complex case, you're quickly in a gray area that makes the point moot.

The "lovely" standard of evidence is called "preponderance of evidence" and is the standard used in U.S. civil law. It's just what it sounds like; if the evidence overall indicates that you did it, but there are still some reasonable doubts, you can be found guilty. It's not that you get community service for murder, it's that the they don't give a poo poo if you're wrongfully convicted of going over on your parking meter. We could have system that said "murder charges require the current standard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt', but if you want to add the death penalty, the evidence standard is more strict. If the standard for murder is met, but not for capital punishment, then you're still in jail for murder."

But you want examples? It's hard to offer them, because almost every convicted murderer fits that description of beyond a reasonable doubt. George Zimmerman, who should have been convicted. Oscar Pistorius was convicted, but not beyond the shadow of a doubt, in my opinion. Hell, Lee Harvey Oswald never had a court trial, and he's known to have done it, but not beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Jack Ruby was beyond the shadow of a doubt guilty. Overwhelming evidence, no credible defense. It's not common to have absolutely no question that you have the right person, and that the death was murder and not self-defense, or accidental, or justified in some other way.

# ¿ Mar 19, 2017 19:00

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 9, 2024 21:48

Infinite Karma: Oct 23, 2004; Good as dead

mcmagic posted:

Those reasons suck.

Or they're good reasons to extend the death penalty to every crime. People sure wouldn't jaywalk lol!

# ¿ Mar 21, 2017 16:16

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Lets talk about how fucked up and shitty the Death Penalty is