The End of The Death Penalty in America
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-03-2014, 10:43 PM
RE: The End of The Death Penalty in America
(26-02-2014 01:19 PM)toadaly Wrote:  ...suppose for a moment that I'm right, and these systems are ultimately rooted in vengeance. Would you really expect this to be verbalized in the mission statements? I wouldn't. But you can see it in the exercise of the system.

Uh, right.

You can't just assert that kind of thing. And you can't double down by saying "well there wouldn't be direct evidence lol".

(26-02-2014 01:19 PM)toadaly Wrote:  Almost everywhere, you see prescribed sentences for various crimes. Did someone do scientific studies to determine the optimum amount of time to keep someone imprisoned for each of these sentences, and that's how it was determined that rape is X years, simple assault is Y, etc? No. There isn't even consensus as to what we should be optimizing in such a study. The sentences are politically determined, and go to the core emotions of the citizenry at large (in a republic at least) who imagine these crimes happening to them, and how much pain to inflict on the criminal in response.

Sentences are determined by judges within the parameters set by legal codes.

Last I checked there was a little more substance there than populist appeals to emotion.

I daresay "how much pain to inflict" by no means enters that consideration in most developed countries.

(26-02-2014 01:19 PM)toadaly Wrote:  If you want to argue it *isn't* human nature, that's fine.

I certainly dispute that it is either as widespread or as relevant as you began by claiming.

(26-02-2014 01:19 PM)toadaly Wrote:  But if you agree that it is, then how is it fallacious to assert that it is, or to recognize that this nature is the basis of our justice system, or to even go further, and assert that vengeance is not unethical, or to even take the final step, and declare that ethics derive from our nature? What else could they even potentially derive from? Why have ethics at all?

Social cohesion.

(26-02-2014 01:19 PM)toadaly Wrote:  Well, that's *your* answer, but it isn't a universal truism, I doubt that it's even a common perspective.

No, I'm pretty sure social cohesion is what motivates the behaviour of social individuals in a society.

And the point of a legal system is to deal with (somehow) those who break society's rules. That's it. Anything further is open season.

(26-02-2014 01:19 PM)toadaly Wrote:  I would think most people would say that the primary reason for a justice system is deterrence. The second place vote, in my guess, is to isolate criminals from the rest of us, third place might be to rehabilitate them.

And why do any of those things, then?

Social cohesion.

(26-02-2014 01:19 PM)toadaly Wrote:  But the effect of vengeance is exactly the same as what I would guess are the top two answers - to deter, and to socially isolate criminals. The "let's be nice to them" idea is fairly new. It might work to reduce recidivism, but so does life in prison and so does execution.

Ah, so now you're just arguing to recidivism anyway.

Capital punishment certainly prevents repeat offenders, but it is much more expensive than the alternatives due to the surrounding legal complications, not the least of which is the inescapable issue of false convictions.

(26-02-2014 01:19 PM)toadaly Wrote:  Maybe, but it also works to make social groups possible. If it didn't, it would not have been selected for in evolutionary history. If it works, that's as good a basis for ethics as any other.

So, you literally just agreed with me as to the foundational notion of social cohesion.

Disputing the specifics is fine, and I've already pointed out and agreed that such disagreement is inevitable. But making all-encompassing and unsupported assertions as to "human nature" as monolithic, worse yet to do so by construing your subjective personal experience as broadly representative... not so useful.

(26-02-2014 01:19 PM)toadaly Wrote:  I suspect I could get you riled up if I really wanted to, to the point you'd be screaming at your computer wanting to beat the crap out of me....maybe not, but if not, you're a very rare individual.

Yeah, you probably could be annoying enough in person that immediate physical action would be the easiest way of dealing with you... but so what? "I might feel a little better afterwards" is a dogshit motivation to wail on someone. And one can construct a hypothetical situation to favour any outcome, if one tries hard enough.

Notwithstanding that "beating the crap out of" is far from the only manifestation of "revenge".
Tongue

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
03-03-2014, 10:44 PM
RE: The End of The Death Penalty in America
(03-03-2014 06:04 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Civilised societies today do not execute their citizens with 1 very notable exception.

... Japan?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2014, 11:16 PM (This post was last modified: 03-03-2014 11:25 PM by Drunkin Druid.)
RE: The End of The Death Penalty in America
(03-03-2014 06:02 PM)toadaly Wrote:  
(03-03-2014 05:55 PM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  A civilized society does not execute it's citizens for any reason.

Civilized societies have been executing serious criminals for thousands of years. 'Civilized' is not the word you're looking for, as you are expressing a personal ethic, probably that of humanism?

Semantics... You know what I meant.
And yes it is my standard that a civilized (I'm using that word and it is in my opinion correct) society must behave a certain way to be considered such. And yes I hold to many humanist values.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2014, 11:20 PM
RE: The End of The Death Penalty in America
(03-03-2014 10:44 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(03-03-2014 06:04 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Civilised societies today do not execute their citizens with 1 very notable exception.

... Japan?
I wouldn't say there are any exceptions..I suppose a country could be nearly civilized and execute people but not fully civilized.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2014, 11:36 PM
RE: The End of The Death Penalty in America
(03-03-2014 10:44 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(03-03-2014 06:04 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Civilised societies today do not execute their citizens with 1 very notable exception.

... Japan?

Well, they have execution. Therefor, they can't be 'civilized'. Rolleyes (...or maybe they just aren't 'notable').

...it'd be nice if people consulted dictionaries on occasion, instead of just claiming words don't mean what they clearly mean, while simultaneously mindlessly accusing others of intellectual dishonesty.

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2014, 11:41 PM
RE: The End of The Death Penalty in America
(03-03-2014 11:16 PM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  
(03-03-2014 06:02 PM)toadaly Wrote:  Civilized societies have been executing serious criminals for thousands of years. 'Civilized' is not the word you're looking for, as you are expressing a personal ethic, probably that of humanism?

Semantics... You know what I meant.
And yes it is my standard that a civilized (I'm using that word and it is in my opinion correct) society must behave a certain way to be considered such. And yes I hold to many humanist values.

I've made a guess at what you mean, but I'm not really sure. I took you to task for attempting to equivocate. 'Civilized' does not mean "let's be unconditionally nice to everyone", it means this:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar...1393911473 Wrote:civilized
adjective

: marked by well-organized laws and rules about how people behave with each other

: polite, reasonable, and respectful

: pleasant and comfortable

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2014, 11:42 PM
RE: The End of The Death Penalty in America
(03-03-2014 10:43 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Sentences are determined by judges within the parameters set by legal codes.

How are the parameters set...in particluar, minimum sentences?

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2014, 11:45 PM
RE: The End of The Death Penalty in America
(03-03-2014 06:04 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  No, sorry but standards of civility change. It was once civilised to have your main street be a sewer but not anymore. Civilised societies today do not execute their citizens with 1 very notable exception.

You are being intellectually dishonest, you stupid hypocritical abusive fuck.

'Civilized' has a meaning, it doesn't have anything to do with societal preferences.

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2014, 11:45 PM
RE: The End of The Death Penalty in America
(03-03-2014 11:36 PM)toadaly Wrote:  
(03-03-2014 10:44 PM)cjlr Wrote:  ... Japan?

Well, they have execution. Therefor, they can't be 'civilized'. Rolleyes (...or maybe they just aren't 'notable').

...it'd be nice if people consulted dictionaries on occasion, instead of just claiming words don't mean what they clearly mean, while simultaneously mindlessly accusing others of intellectual dishonesty.
No I mean civilized. If Japan executes people then they (admittedly my standard) are not civilized. If you find that offensive so be it. It's how I feel and I won't apologize.
Now if you feel that I must use civilized in some Ivy League way you will be disappointed. Perhaps you're aware of colloquialisms? This is how the word is used where I come from and as I said before, you know what I meant. So how about we not argue semantics. It's a useless endeavour...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2014, 12:02 AM
RE: The End of The Death Penalty in America
(03-03-2014 11:45 PM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  No I mean civilized. If Japan executes people then they (admittedly my standard) are not civilized. If you find that offensive so be it. It's how I feel and I won't apologize.

Now if you feel that I must use civilized in some Ivy League way you will be disappointed. Perhaps you're aware of colloquialisms? This is how the word is used where I come from and as I said before, you know what I meant. So how about we not argue semantics. It's a useless endeavour...

The thing is, I *don't* know what you mean. I know it clearly violates your personal ethics. but I don't know if you're trying to make a stronger point than that, or more importantly *why* you find it unacceptable.

Why the hell should any of us care what the personal ethics of others are, especially if they even thought it through for themselves? I've provided my reasoning. You might not agree with it, you might find my reasoning flawed, you might find it brutush, or whatever, but at least I've given it some thought. That's more than what I've seen from the masses trying to change the meaning of the word 'civilized' because they've never given it any thought and have no better argument.

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: