The Death Penalty [Archive]

LSD

8th February 2007, 01:15

What are your guy's opinions on the Death Penalty. Is it a system who's only faults is that it is conducted by the state or by who they choose to kill?

The problem with the death penalty is that it's a perfect punishment in an imperfect world.

To be utilized on a significant scale it would require a justice system capable of dispensing flawless judgements and that's simply not attainable.

Obviously we can greatly improve on the one we've got now, but even in the most idealized utopian classless stateless communist system imaginable, mistakes will happen.

And when they do, any punishments imposed need to be reversibly, at least to a reasonble degree. Death isn't reversible at all.

is it wrong in general to murder another human being?

That's an interesting question because it relies on two made up concepts, "wrong" and "murder".

"Murder" just means unlawful killing, and lawful is obviously subject to the whims of the social order in power. "Wrong" meanwhile is a completely meaningless word.

So, no, it's not "wrong" to "murder another human being". It is however contrary to the interests of society to tolerate intrasocietal killings. Which is why every society in history has established rules on the subject.

That doesn't mean, though, that we should hesitate in killing if it's justifiably nescessary, like in revolutionary conflict, or when dealing with an uncontroversial war criminal.

Again, the problem with the death penality isn't "moral", it's practical.

I think murdering someone for murdering can probably the worst, because in Murder there are often gray areas. However with things like Rape, wife/child beating, and thing of this nature there is no gray area, and should be punished as such.

What on earth are you talking about?

Rape is probably one of the greyest crimes out there. It's all tied up in what constitutes "consent" and "capacity" and what people "really meant" to communicate.

It's also a deeply personal crime, with victims and perpetrators usually knowing each other and almost never any witnesses.

Thanks to DNA testing, more and more convicted rapists are being released every year. Don't think for an instance that rape is a "black and white" issue. When it comes to criminal justice, nothing is.

Which is why, again, the death penalty cannot be employed, especially not on "gray" areas like rape or, even worse, simple assault.

Do you have any idea how many people are acused of assault every year? Are you seriously suggesting that they should all be executed? :blink:

DiggerII

8th February 2007, 01:21

Originally posted by Blue Collar [email protected] 08, 2007 12:56 am
If you want criminals, create laws.

The Death Penalty is just the powers that be stamping out their own mistakes rather than dealing with the actual root of the problem. Billions is spent on punishing criminals while almost no money is spent on identifying the causes of crime (its the capitalistic system by the way) and fixing them.
this is most certainly true. In my mind, killing or "murder" is definitely an immoral act. However, the fact that such things happen requires good responses, killing someone to show killing's wrong is useless.

Hate Is Art

8th February 2007, 01:40

There's that word 'immoral' again, morality is linked quite intrinsicly upon the basis of theological though. Morality isn't a fixed point, so nothing can be 'immoral' definately, only subjectively.

Kropotkin Has a Posse

8th February 2007, 04:16

All right, let me be subjective for a second and let out the notion that if the government condemns killing, it shouldn't actually kill people.

LSD

8th February 2007, 04:33

Why not?

Not that I agree with the notion of "government" as presently constructed, but for the sake of argument, let's say I did.

Well, the government does a lot of thinks that it doesn't allow private citizens to do. It locks them up without their permission, it takes children away from their parents, it forces people to give it money at gunpoint.

The entire point of an institutional government is that it can do things that other can't. That's not hypcrosy, it's just the monopoly of force.

And even in a decentralized society, there's going to have to be a degree of monopolization. Individual citizens can't be free to run around killing each other or locking each other up; but when society at large democratically determines that such things are nescessary, they'll have to be done.

I mean just think for a moment about what your model of governmental consistancy would require. It would mean that anything "government" can do (whether we're talking complex state or just social majority) must also be doable by the general population ...including things as outlandish as possesing nuclear weapons or expropriating property.

Government, at least in theory, represents the people at large; individuals represent only themselves. It's ludicrous to expect the two of them to behave the same way.

In my mind, killing or "murder" is definitely an immoral act.

No such thing.

Red Menace

8th February 2007, 05:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 07:15 pm
What on earth are you talking about?

Rape is probably one of the greyest crimes out there. It's all tied up in what constitutes "consent" and "capacity" and what people "really meant" to communicate.

It's also a deeply personal crime, with victims and perpetrators usually knowing each other and almost never any witnesses.

Thanks to DNA testing, more and more convicted rapists are being released every year. Don't think for an instance that rape is a "black and white" issue. When it comes to criminal justice, nothing is.

Which is why, again, the death penalty cannot be employed, especially not on "gray" areas like rape or, even worse, simple assault.

Do you have any idea how many people are acused of assault every year? Are you seriously suggesting that they should all be executed? :blink:
Well maybe I was being a bit liberal in using rape. Rape can and usually is the result of deep personal problems for the rapist, causing him to rape in the first place.

but what you said about me suggesting that we murder men accused of rape is preposterous. Everyone deserves the right to a trial. I was referring to those found guilty. But like I said I think I used the term Rape to openly and I withdraw that statement.

RGacky3

8th February 2007, 05:53

Morallity is at the heart of Socialistic thought, if there is no such thing as wrong, then the Capitalists are right, doing things just for yourself without regard for anyone else, and using them for your own enrichment is ok, nothing 'Wrong' with that.

I believe in Morality, right and wrong, and I believe whats right is to do whats best for everyone, Morality is sometimes attached to religion (in my case it is), but it does'nt always have to be.

The death Penalty is wrong, first of all if your going to kill someone, that means giving an institution the power to decide if someone should live or not, and NO MAN, has the right to decide if someone has the right to live or not, no one and no group of people has the right to take someone elses life.

I think the Zapatista Judicial system is better, for example a punishment for murder is the Murderer has to provide economically for the family of the Murdered for the rest of his life.

Kropotkin Has a Posse

8th February 2007, 05:58

People say we have no morality, but I think instead we should focus on an alternate morality, or moral relatavism. Ie it is wrong to steal from your fellow workers...but when it comes to stealing from The Man to provide for your family in times of need, it's a different story. People should not kill unless their lives are directly threatened, etc.

BobKKKindle$

8th February 2007, 06:23

I think that the concept of a death penalty simply represents a poor understanding of the impetuses that give rise to criminal acts. Many people commit crimes as a result of factors that are entirely out of their control (and thus factors to which they cannot be made accountable) such as the socio-economic conditions in which they live - It is, as another poster noted, unfair to subject someone to the death penalty when they were driven to say, armed robbery, in order to provide for themselves and their family because they are unable to sell their labour power in exchange for access to the means of subsistence. In addition, those living in conditions of poverty are also subject to social alienation and mental anguish to a greater extent than those living in conditions of plenty, and on that basis may also be driven to acts of violence. It should be clear that these problems would not exist in a socialist society, where everyone has access to the goods and services needed to maintain a basic standard of welfare.

LSD

8th February 2007, 06:26

Everyone deserves the right to a trial. I was referring to those found guilty.

Again, though, no trial system can be perfect. And rape is one of those crimes where trials tend to be notoriously unreliable.

It's sure as hell a lot "greyer" than crimes like murder which you delcared too grey for the death penalty to apply.

In reality, of course, both of them are too grey for an irreversible sentence like death. There are just too many proven cases in which mistakes were made to trust that executions could be issued remotely without error.

if there is no such thing as wrong, then the Capitalists are right, doing things just for yourself without regard for anyone else, and using them for your own enrichment is ok, nothing 'Wrong' with that.

Correct, there is nothing "wrong" with capitalism in a "moral" sense. There is however, something objectively harmful about it.

You see you don't need metaphysical notions of "morality" to rationaly analyze what is and what isn't in the interests of society. And, in fact, you're much more likely to come to a sensible conclusion if you dispense with all the "right" and "wrong" blather.

"Morality" is ultimately just another word for belief. "Wrong" is whatever you feel is "wrong", and most of the time those feelings are based on superstitious nonsense and anachronistic dogmas.

There is nothing objectively harmful about homosexuality. If you're a Christian, however, it's subjectively "wrong". At least that's what the Bible says. Which is why, of course, so many Western conservatives are working so hard to keep gay people down.

And, yeah, I know the liberal Christian retort; it's not what "God" "really meant", "Jesus" commanded to "love", blah, blah, blah... but you're still relying on this foundation of faith. You're still accepting the premise that if something is "wrong" it should be outlawed.

And it's that foundation which is dangerous, not the particular interpretation at issue. As long as societies organize along subjective beliefs instead of objective facts, mistakes will be made.

That's not to say that mistakes can ever be fully avoided, perfection is probably unattainable; but a good step in that direction is the junking of all this metaphysical nonsense about ethical universals.

What I believe and what you believe are and always will be two different things. Let's stop pretending that we can, or should, reach some kind of "ethical agreement".

Society shouldn't be about beliefs, it should be about needs, about serving its members to the greatest degree possible. And, yeah, that means getting rid of capitalism, it means disallowing private property.

Not because exploitation is "wrong" but because it harms members of society and as such runs contrary to the very purpose of society itself.

Easy, simple, and with no need for "ten commandments". :)

morality is sometimes attached to religion (in my case it is)

How sadly predictable...

and NO MAN, has the right to decide if someone has the right to live or not

Then who does?

There's no one here but us men (and women), there's no higher power to "guide our hands". So when we're fighting the revolution and the soldiers of the state are barreling down on us, what exactly do you propose we do? Pray???

Sometims kiling is nescessary, and yeah that means letting men (or women) decide if someone has the "right to live or not".

And those cases aren't restricted to the field of battle. If Hitler had survived the war, he should have been put to death. Full stop. Same for Goerring, same for Himmler.

Those are the uncontroversial and massive cases, of course, and in general the death penalty is simply too complete a weapon to be used responsibly. Which is why, again, I don't support it as a part of a regular justice system, now or post-revolution.

It should be noted, though, that the reason for killing Hitler isn't to "punish" him, but just to end him. To start the process of moving society forward.

I mean, really, can you imagine if Hitler had lived another 40 years behind bards? Can you think of a single positive thing that would have come out of such a scenario?

RGacky3

8th February 2007, 06:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 06:26 am
Correct, there is nothing "wrong" with capitalism in a "moral" sense. There is however, something objectively harmful about it.

And, yeah, I know the liberal Christian retort; it's not what "God" "really meant", "Jesus" commanded to "love", blah, blah, blah... but you're still relying on this foundation of faith. You're still accepting the premise that if something is "wrong" it should be outlawed.

And it's that foundation which is dangerous, not the particular interpretation at issue. As long as societies organize along subjective beliefs instead of objective facts, mistakes will be made.

That's not to say that mistakes can ever be fully avoided, perfection is probably unattainable; but a good step in that direction is the junking of all this metaphysical nonsense about ethical universals.

What I believe and what you believe are and always will be two different things. Let's stop pretending that we can, or should, reach some kind of "ethical agreement".

Society shouldn't be about beliefs, it should be about needs, about serving its members to the greatest degree possible. And, yeah, that means getting rid of capitalism, it means disallowing private property.

Not because exploitation is "wrong" but because it harms members of society and as such runs contrary to the very purpose of society itself.

Easy, simple, and with no need for "ten commandments". :)

morality is sometimes attached to religion (in my case it is)

How sadly predictable...
What does the interests of Society matter at all if theres no Morality, if theres no Morality to hell with Society, I'll use and exploit it as much as I can. Plus who makes up Society? EVERYONE IN IT.

I don't think anything that I consider 'wrong' should be outlawed. I don't want a society based on religion, I want a Society that is free and equal, everyones religions is dependant on their own concience. But you can't have a free and equal Society, when you have a group of people that can kill someone institutionally.

and NO MAN, has the right to decide if someone has the right to live or not

Then who does?

You ask who has the right to decide if someone lifes or dies? No one, no one has that right life belongs to the person living it and no one else.

You see you don't need metaphysical notions of "morality" to rationaly analyze what is and what isn't in the interests of society. And, in fact, you're much more likely to come to a sensible conclusion if you dispense with all the "right" and "wrong" blather.

Defending yourself against someone who is trying to kill you is much different from the death penalty, the death penalty is not self-defense, its punishment.

I mean, really, can you imagine if Hitler had lived another 40 years behind bards? Can you think of a single positive thing that would have come out of such a scenario?

Respect for life.

LSD

8th February 2007, 08:37

f theres no Morality to hell with Society, I'll use and exploit it as much as I can

And the rest of us will stop you because it's not in our interest to let you do that; nor, in the end, is it actually in yours. A functional and egalitarian society serves all of its members better than a disfunctional one in which we all "race to the top".

Again, it's not about "morality", it's about practicality, it's about what's best for society.

Society exists to serve its members, that's its entire reason for being. When it doesn't do that efficiently, it is disfunctional and must be reformed. The determination of what is harmful and what is benneficial, however, must be made rationaly and objectively.

That process is the opposite of "morality", which is rooted in blind "faith" and anachronistic dogmas.

If killing is objectively nescessary, then it is objectively nescessary. There's no such thing as a universal "wrong".

I don't think anything that I consider 'wrong' should be outlawed.

Yes you do. In fact, you said so yourself. You consider "murder" to be "wrong" and hence should be outlawed, even if said "murder" is the democratic will of the population at large.

That's the exact same argument that anti-homosexual activists use to push their bullshit. It's just a different proscribed activity.

But you can't have a free and equal Society, when you have a group of people that can kill someone institutionally.

If that "group of people" is society at large, then yes you can, since everyone equally participated in the decision.

And, really, what's the alternative? Institutional pacifism?

Defending yourself against someone who is trying to kill you is much different from the death penalty, the death penalty is not self-defense, its punishment.

Well, "defence" is a much greyer concept that you might want to believe. It rellies on the premise that since life is better than death, one can use whatever means are nescessary to prevent death.

That's a fairly reasonble premise, but the problem, for you, is that it also requires that "murder" is acceptible so long as the interest being served is justifiable enough.

Now some might argue that nothing can be as valuable as a life and hence only saving one can be an accpetible justification for killing. But value is a subjective determination, and a lot of people would disagree with that assertion.

So if you believe in democracy, you have to accept that empowering a society to democratically defend itself through killing requires allowing said society to set its own standards for what constitutes nescessity.

And that means, in most cases, accepting that war criminals are going to get killed.

The bennefit of killing them is, in many cases, as great, if not greater, than that achieved from "self-defence"

Respect for life.

<_<

You're talking "morality" again. Worse, you're talking morality in circles.

You can't defend the "right to life" by appealing to the "right to life". If there really is such an absolute right, you need to provide rational argumentation in defence of it. In other words demontrate why it is nescessary.

I'll admit that Hitler isn't exactly the most level example possible, but hey, if this "wrong" really is as universal as you claim it is, it should apply even here.

That is, there should be a demonstrable harm in killing Hitler. 'Cause if there isn't, your moral paradigm is revealed to be utterly irrelevent.

Kia

8th February 2007, 09:47

Think I'll leave LSD to the debate on the meaning of the words and the thoughts behind them and rather state my personal opinion on the subject.

Personally I' almost 99.9% against the death penalty. I do not agree with the current judicial system in America that believes that punishment is more important then reformation. Rather then trying to imprison or execute everyone who has committed a crime it would seem more beneficial to work towards reforming those people and helping them "turn a new leaf" as the saying goes. Even in this awful mess of a judicial system people are capable of being reformed and many have. If this can work in this situation then in a communist/anarchist/etc society then we should try our hardest to work towards it. The only situation I can see death penalty being a possible option is with definite cases of genocide.
My general argument for why the death penalty should no longer be used is that first the death penalty is the ultimate punishment...life ends. The problem with that is sometimes innocent people are executed. Allowing the death penalty means we run a risk of killing off innocent people who have done nothing at all but have the bad luck of being found guilty.
Arguments are made in America that it is cheaper to kill a serial killer or rapist then keep him in prison for life...this however doesn't fit into socialist thinking. We cannot value a life in $$$ and choose the cheaper option because we want to save a buck or two.
With rapist, child molesters, serial killers, etc....(the hard criminals) I would say that if nothing can be done for them then we must face the fact that they will have to spend life in prison to keep them from causing more harm to the rest of society. We should not however deny them the opportunity to work towards being reformed. Even some of the dangerous criminals do become reformed. Take for example Stanley Williams, who committed multiple murders and attempted robberies, he could easily have been said to have been reformed just before he was executed and yet instead of at least sparing his life for his efforts against gang violence in his later years, the government decided to kill him anyways. Do we find this justifiable?

I will make a quick comment about the Hitler thing. If Hitler was caught I doubt and miraculously escaped being executed (I doubt he would have survived anyways....the amount of hatred for him is so high I think he'd have just been killed anyways in prison by other prisoners or by the guards themselves) he could have been beneficial in keeping him alive. The only benefits I could see would have been to help understand the tiniest details in how Nazism functioned in Germany so future generations would have a better understands of the worlds past history and possibly worst war. The second benefit would be that he would have been helpful in the Nuremberg Trials in providing information. He might also have been helpful in knowing where thousands of works of arts ended up that have been lost ever since.

StartToday

8th February 2007, 10:21

BobKKKindle$

8th February 2007, 11:02

Well, say what you will of me, but I support the death penalty when it comes to serial child molesters. And also child murderers. There is no reason to either kill or molest a kid, they can't fight back.

A large proporiton of those who commit child abuse of a sexual nature were themselves subject to abuse as a children; based on this it should be clear that at least some child molesters are not undertaking free actions which they understand the consequences of and thus can be held accountable to; but rather were mentally disturbed in some way which gave rise to their behaviour. Given that the death penalty is the ultimate punishement, it should be clear that imposing it on someone for a crime they cannot be held accountable is simply unfair and unreasonable.

Rather, we should endeavour to help these people overcome their problems and thus become useful members of society which pose no threat to their fellows - ven if this involves methods we may consider coercive, such as chemical castration, because any treatement that leaves the individual with the ability to function normally is superior to the death penalty.

LuÃs Henrique

8th February 2007, 13:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 01:15 am
Don't think for an instance that rape is a "black and white" issue.
You are right, both in the meaning you intended, and in the one you did not.

Luís Henrique

RGacky3

8th February 2007, 15:38

And the rest of us will stop you because it's not in our interest to let you do that; nor, in the end, is it actually in yours. A functional and egalitarian society serves all of its members better than a disfunctional one in which we all "race to the top".

Again, it's not about "morality", it's about practicality, it's about what's best for society.

Society exists to serve its members, that's its entire reason for being. When it doesn't do that efficiently, it is disfunctional and must be reformed. The determination of what is harmful and what is benneficial, however, must be made rationaly and objectively.

Well Historically those who have rebelled and engaged in Revolution have not done too well (meaning their dead). A revolution in the US leading to an Egalitarian Society is'nt going to happen any time soon, so it actually will be better for me (Practically) to get to the top and do whatever I can to enrich myself, and enjoy life off the work of others, why not? No one has stopped other people from doing it for the last couple thousand years (apart from a few instances, most of which have been crushed in a short time).

You say Society exists to serve its members? who says? If theres no Morality what would stop me from saying Society exists to serve me? With no Morality you end up with Nitzche.

The Moral I put on Society is the one that all men have a right too freedom and all men are equal, This differs from other religious beliefs because its an innate right of man. (Unlike things such as Gods laws which are only for those who choose voluntarily to serve God).

That's a fairly reasonble premise, but the problem, for you, is that it also requires that "murder" is acceptible so long as the interest being served is justifiable enough.

Now some might argue that nothing can be as valuable as a life and hence only saving one can be an accpetible justification for killing. But value is a subjective determination, and a lot of people would disagree with that assertion.

So if you believe in democracy, you have to accept that empowering a society to democratically defend itself through killing requires allowing said society to set its own standards for what constitutes nescessity.

The problem is look at the root cause of Murder, Murder either happens out of Material needs, or wants, or because of some sort of Mental illness. People don't kill just to kill, thats saying that some people are just Innately 'Evil'. So if you take away the conditions for murder (i.e. oppression, and greed) all thats left is mental illness, or extreme personal conditions. Mentally Ill people should be given the help they desearve (of coarse if you have no Morality why not just kill everyone with big disabilities, they don't help much) before it gets as far as Murder, if its personal Conditions, different deterants can be used such as my Zapatista example.

I dont' believe in Democracy I believe in Anarchy, I don't believe a Large group of people have to right to Oppress a smaller group, only Voluntary Democracy.

YKTMX

8th February 2007, 15:56

I agree with LSD that we certainly shouldn't be getting into "moral objections". They usually lead to complete hypocrisy, unless one is a convinced pacifist. Also, it seems borderline religious.

Our objections should be that we are opposed to the violence of the State, precisely because the State, in its current form, embodies and represents the interests of the dominant class.

Since that dominant class is a minority, its use of force can never serve the interests of society as a whole - which should be the goal of any justice system.

Also, we should distinguish between the use of capital punishment in revolutionary times and in those years after the victory of the revolution.

Quite clearly, in revolutionary times, when notions of "justice" and "law" break down (because the oppressed class no longer accepts the old ways) then it's silly to talk about "legality" in that sense - since legality can only exist if laws are made by all and accepted by all.

But, I do reject the idea that there would be no use of "force" or "coercion" in communist society.

LSD

8th February 2007, 20:43

so it actually will be better for me (Practically) to get to the top and do whatever I can to enrich myself, and enjoy life off the work of others, why not?

Because you can't ...which is the whole point.

If capitalism actually worked as advertised, if we all actually could "rise to the top" and "live the dream", there wouldn't be a need for revolution. But the reality is that no matter how hard you work, chances are you're going to end up exactly where you started.

The only way that workers every accomplish anything is by working together. That's not a "moral" statement, it's an historical one.

The problem with capitalism isn't that it's "wrong", but that's demonstrably harmful. We should fight to replace it because we have a superior model in mind, not because it "offends" our "morals".

'Cause, again, when you take the "moral" stand you get trapped in a subjectivist quagmire of postmodern half-truths and relativist paranoia and you miss the possible victories that are actually out there.

Supporting the Soviet Union in the Second World War wasn't particularly "moral", but it was nonetheless nescessary. And while I'm sure you can come up with all sorts of ethical gymnastics to defend just about anything, the reality is that it's pragmatic considerations that set the course.

"Morally", Stalin was a bad guy; the same kind of thinking that says that "murder" is "always wrong" also says that such a man cannot be supported, no matter the circumstances.

And yet we both know what that kind of position in 1942 could have led to.

Sometimes killing is nescessary, sometimes it isn't. But the decision needs to be made rationally and logically and not be bogged down in ridiculous anachronistic notions about "moral absolutes".

You say Society exists to serve its members? who says?

Nobody "says" it, it's just a fact. Society is composed of its membership and nothing more, its only reason for existing is to provide more bennefit to that membership than could be otherwise attainable.

Stop coming at this from a subjective perspective. The issue isn't what you "think", it's what makes sound social policy.

Whether or not your "morals" object is irrelevent, the question is whether or not its in the interests of society since it's society that's going to be committing the action.

And if you can't provide a coherent and objective argument for your "morals', then they shouldn't be considered in deliberations. Again, "morals" are just too subjective and diverse to play an effective role in setting sound policy.

You may not find homosexuality "immoral", but a lot of people do. So if we base our society on "morals", we're forced to oulaw it. After all, if we respect your "moral" notions of a "right to life", why not their "moral" notions of "family values"?

You see it's subjectivity that's the danger here, it's the entire "moral" paradigm. It's the same way that fighting racism, ultimately, require fighting the idea of race itself. 'Cause as long as people think it exists, they'll think it matters.

As long as people see "belief" as a justification in and of itself, they'll believe in some deeply reactionary things, and they'll be nothing you can say to change their minds.

If theres no Morality what would stop me from saying Society exists to serve me?

Nothing, in fact you just did say that. You just happen to be wrong.

See you're coming at this from a decidedly idealist perspective, as if what people "say" has any bearing on material truth.

It doesn't.

I dont' believe in Democracy I believe in Anarchy, I don't believe a Large group of people have to right to Oppress a smaller group, only Voluntary Democracy.

So if a child molester doesn't "volunteer" to be stopped, society can't intervene? Not even if 95% of the population wants it to?

That's not anarchy, it's nihilism... <_<

gilhyle

8th February 2007, 20:54

The death penalty is an ineffective part of the capitalist system of criminal law. That doesnt worry me.

Morality is the basis for socialism only if class is not. I believe in class.

Killing is a legitimate tactic for a revolutionary state if it works and can be applied without undermining the revolutionary state.

Terror by killing works against counter revolution if the counter revolutionaries can be identified as dominant in a certain geographical area or identifiable social group.

anarchist_utopia

8th February 2007, 21:17

only capitalists should get the death penalty ;)

Kia

8th February 2007, 21:32

Well, say what you will of me, but I support the death penalty when it comes to serial child molesters. And also child murderers. There is no reason to either kill or molest a kid, they can't fight back.

I do agree with you about the accidental sentencing of innocent people, though. So only in cases where the evidence is, without a doubt, clearly proving the person guilty (of one of the aforementioned crimes) do I support the death penalty.

I don't think somebody who goes around killing 2nd graders deserves a chance at rehabilitation, or that it's even possible to change somebody like that.

Well I understand your point. Serial Killers, rapists, child molester, etc.... do commit extremely atrocious crimes..but there have been cases when even these people have been reformed and done good for their community. For those who have no chance of reformation the death penalty could be a viable option but then again one does run a risk of executing an innocent person again. Even some people with an unbelievable amount of evidence have been found guilty of multiple crimes they were suppose to have committed when in fact they never did at all. The number of cases that are 100% definite are very few.
If one is seeking vengeance for acts committed then life in prison should do just fine. Forced to spend the rest of your life in a small cell and never have any chance of freedom should be enough vengeance for the family or victim.
the justice system shouldn't be designed to punish but rather to limit criminals access to society and do its best to reform.

I have a semi personal example of why not allowing the death penalty can be beneficial. A friend of the families was one of the accused I believe in the Guildford pub bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guildford_pub_bombing). I believe it is Patrick Armstrong (only met the guy when i was very young..but i have a horse drawn carriage made out of matchsticks he made while in prison); anyways they were falsely accused and sentenced to 15 years in prison. If the death penalty had been allowed in England then I'm sure they would have executed him before they were able to prove that the four were innocent. Even In such cases like this in where the evidence was HUGE against them (much of it false though and provided by the police), they were found in the end to be completely innocent.

only capitalists should get the death penalty wink.gif

However much I may dislike capitalism and many people who support it....I disagree.
There are millions of people who currently could be labeled as capitalists just because they live in a capitalistic system. Executing them would bring 0 benefits to the revolution. Executing a stock trader isn't going to help us that much at all. Imprisoning Key members of the bourgeoisie would be allowed. Killing everyone we dislike doesn't solve the problem at all and only turns us people who commit genocide.

RGacky3

9th February 2007, 16:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 08:43 pm
Because you can't ...which is the whole point.

If capitalism actually worked as advertised, if we all actually could "rise to the top" and "live the dream", there wouldn't be a need for revolution. But the reality is that no matter how hard you work, chances are you're going to end up exactly where you started.

The only way that workers every accomplish anything is by working together. That's not a "moral" statement, it's an historical one.
So your saying, if you COULD get on top, you would? because I'll tell you this much, living as a revolutionairy won't get you the most conforts and pleasures in life, the way to do that is through working with the system. Without Morality your left with complete Egoism. My Morals the way I live my life is my business, but part of my Morals is that I should look out for the well being of my fellow man, thats why I am an Anarchist, if I did'nt have that Morality I would have no problem with Sophism, decieving people for personal Gain or Using people. If a worker wants to get ahead in this system he steps on other workers using the system, because working together and opposing the system is much much riskier.

[/QUOTE]
You say Society exists to serve its members? who says?

Nobody "says" it, it's just a fact. Society is composed of its membership and nothing more, its only reason for existing is to provide more bennefit to that membership than could be otherwise attainable.

Stop coming at this from a subjective perspective. The issue isn't what you "think", it's what makes sound social policy.

Whether or not your "morals" object is irrelevent, the question is whether or not its in the interests of society since it's society that's going to be committing the action.
[QUOTE]

You say its just a fact, but what are you basing it on, thats a Moral Issue, what would stop me from trying to manipulate Society for my own personal gain, Society is'nt an objective concept, everyone looks at it from a subjective perspective, society is about interactions, and without a morality (which I believe everyone is born with), there is no reason why I should not use Society for my own gain, Objectivly saying that Society exists for the purpose to Benefit all its members is just as metaphysical as saying that every person has an innate right to life.

LSD

9th February 2007, 16:48

So your saying, if you COULD get on top, you would?

I'm saying it's a moot issue because I can't. And even if I could, most people still coudln't. Meaning that revolution will always be in the interests of most of the population.

Not for "moral" reasons, but for practical ones.

because I'll tell you this much, living as a revolutionairy won't get you the most conforts and pleasures in life, the way to do that is through working with the system. Without Morality your left with complete Egoism. My Morals the way I live my life is my business, but part of my Morals is that I should look out for the well being of my fellow man, thats why I am an Anarchist

You're conflating personal ethics with universal "morality". We all have internal rules for how we live our life, but the question at hand is whether or not we should attempt to build public policy around those subjective values.

'Cause you're not just saying that you personally don't want to kill anyone, you're saying that because you think it's "wrong", no one should be allowed to do it, not even democratically, not even when it's absolutely nescessary.

Obviously morality exists insofar as people believe that it does, but it has no objective reality.

And, by the way, "egoism" is a "morality" too. It's just a different set of "morals".

Rejecting universal "morality" doesn't mean embracing "egoism", in fact quite the reverse, it means rejecting all metaphysical notions of "acceptable" behaviour. It means shaping one's actions around what is objectively and rationaly verifiable.

That's not to say that humans can or should be rational at all times, quite the reverse, a degree of irrationality is unavoidable and undeniably fun. But we're talking about public policy here, not personal pleasure.

So while it may not be particularly rational for me to be disgusted by, say, sex involving fecal matter, I'm still not going to participate in any such activity. At the same time, however, since I recognize that my aversion is irrational, I would never prevent others from doing so if they so choose.

The same goes for issues of life and death.

If a worker wants to get ahead in this system he steps on other workers using the system, because working together and opposing the system is much much riskier.

Except it's not.

Every gain that workers have ever achieved was due to standing together. The nature of capitalism is that 99.9% of people will never succeed, no matter how "hard" they work.

You're buying into the capitalist mth that one need only be "dedicated" enough or "ruthless" enough and one will rise to the top. The reality, however, is that the entire system is rigged against us from the start.

Fighting capitalism is not a "moral" issue, not for those of us who are being exploited by it; it's a practical one. So, yeah, if capitalism actually worked, there wouldn't be a point in opposing it. But since it doesn't, there is.

Again, basing ones opposition to capitalism on "moral" objections is eminently dangerous because "morals" are so damn subjective. And once you tolerate the precedent that "moral" objections are legitimate, you open the door to all manner of prejudice and intolerance.

The paradigm of belief-based justification is itself a danger no matter how "good" the particular beliefs in question might be.

Society is'nt an objective concept

:blink: Are you high?

Society is a group of individuals and their relationships therein, nothing more nothing less.

It's definable, identifiable, and empirically verifiable. By any definition, it is has objective existance.

Objectivly saying that Society exists for the purpose to Benefit all its members is just as metaphysical as saying that every person has an innate right to life.

Except that the former is logically derived and the latter is pure assertion.

All that society is is the people who make it up, therefore its interests are their interests and their bennefit is its bennefit. The more diverse and maximized the bennefit, the greater the cumulative effect.

It's the same reason that washing a car's parts washes the car. The car is the parts and the parts are the car.

This is rather basic stuff, RG...

And in terms of a "right to life", again, you're indulging in nonsense moralizing.

You're looking at life as if it has some sort of externalistic importance, as if it were more than a collection of active cellular processes. It isn't.

Human life is only important insofar as it defines human societal membership. And that is only important insofar as crafting human social policy. There is no "value" or "meaning" to "life" because "life" is nothing more than a biochemical reaction.

"Murder" isn't "wrong" because it "ends a life", it's socially undesirable because it harms an enfranchised member of said society. Outside of that society, there is absolutely nothing "wrong" with ending a life, and, indeed, the natural world is predicated on the ending of life.

Our ecosystem is built upon predation and death. If life had implicit moral "value" then the natureal world itself would be "wrong" and "imoral". Therefore unless you acknowledge that "value of life" is mythical, you're left with an irreconcilable paradox.

red_orchestra

20th February 2007, 02:24

I think laws are meant to create criminals in a way... and in many many cases the death penalty stamps out the mistakes that the society/country allowed to persist. Its a very inefficient system. However, death penalty should be reserved for only the most hideous crimes-- some people cannot be "corrected".

98% of all criminals can be reformed - 2% are a waste of space.

EwokUtopia

21st February 2007, 22:38

Killing is a very grey area of discussion. There is a huge difference between, say, killing fascists during a battle where they are attempting to kill us and taking their leaders captive and killing them out of revenge.

Once the violent "criminal" (If I may use such a passe word) has been taken captive and has had the threat they posed neutralized, they should never be killed out of vengence for whatever they had done to wind up in the position of captivity. This is different if we have an axe-weilding madman running through the streets hacking everybody up. Violence, while completely undesirable, is not unavoidable, but violence should never be used by people as an act of vengence, which is exactly what the death penalty is.

Therefore I oppose the death penalty, because it opens windows up. It is a cheap way of dealing with crime, and in the capitalist society we live in, cheapness is dangerous. A poison needle is much cheaper than a years supply of food and board (albiet locked board), and since we live in a capitalist society which is increasingly unwilling to pay taxes, this can lead to dangerous things. I would not be surprised if Texas starts killing people for GTA and muggings during the looming American Economic crisis.

In a Socialist society (varrying in look and "law" from Commune to Commune), the Death Penalty should never be practised for any reason, up to and including genocide. Killing out of vengence does not reverse any attrocity, it just places blood (even if it is extremely guilty blood) on the society which performs the execution. It is a silly way for state power to perform a violent act in the name of a primitive human emotion like revenge and anger.

Socialist Society requires not only a revolution, but an evolution as well, we must leave violence, anger, hatred, war, greed, and all other unfortunate facts of life in the past once it is achieved. Human nature can be changed (how "natural" is it for me to be typing this on this technology? or wearing clothes for that matter?), and the capitalists are right that true socialism is not compatible with certain aspects of current human nature. Its time for a Socialist Evolution.

RGacky3

22nd February 2007, 02:19

LSD.

You act as if Society and Human kind have a mass concience. They don't, every single person thinks for himself, and without Morality will do what is best for himself, not Society as a whole. You talk about making a social system, but who makes social systems? Individuals. Society IS NOT OBJECTIVE, society is'nt a physical thing, its a word to describe human relationships, when I say objective I mean it has existance apart from our perception, which it does'nt, it has as much existance as Marriage or laws do, which only exist subjectively. Society is not like a car at all, because parts in a car don't think for themselves, they exist for the car, humans are independant beings with free will. And its not a myth that workers can attain better living standards easier and quicker by going along with Oppression. For example, Mexicans comming to America to make more money, rather than try fix conditions at home, guess what, for the individual and the short term it works. Stepping on other workers have gotten many a worker a raise or a promotion.

Talking about rationality and reason in Society is not as easy as talking about it in the Sciences, because Humans are not Robots, they are people with free wills, desires, and natural Morality.

RedStarMilitia

23rd February 2007, 03:14

I think two wrongs don't make a right. i think that killing someone because they killed is a paradox, both are equally bad. im glad i live in the uk where there is no death penalty. i think people should have harsh prison sentances, in some ways death is too easy, some people should just live lonely for the rest of their lives.

well said RGacky

RGacky3

23rd February 2007, 06:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 03:14 am
im glad i live in the uk where there is no death penalty. i think people should have harsh prison sentances, in some ways death is too easy, some people should just live lonely for the rest of their lives.
I personally am also agasint the prison system, no one (not the state either) has the right to take away someones life, putting them in prison for the rest of their live is almost as bad, the prisons we have in the US, SuperMax prisons, are horrible abuses of Human rights, most people that go in there are there for gang related stuff, drug deals and the such, and Prisons only make people more violent.

EwokUtopia

23rd February 2007, 16:58

End Poverty, End Disparity, End Consumer Want, and 99% of crime will vanish.

The few people who are still commiting violent crimes will most likely be suffering from some sort of mental disorders, or will be reactionary rebels, and will be dealt with as such: Put the former into some form of mental institute, isolate the latter in some remote Island.

Ol' Dirty

23rd February 2007, 23:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 09:19 pm
LSD.

You act as if Society and Human kind have a mass concience. They don't, every single person thinks for himself, and without Morality will do what is best for himself, not Society as a whole. You talk about making a social system, but who makes social systems? Individuals. Society IS NOT OBJECTIVE, society is'nt a physical thing, its a word to describe human relationships, when I say objective I mean it has existance apart from our perception, which it does'nt, it has as much existance as Marriage or laws do, which only exist subjectively. Society is not like a car at all, because parts in a car don't think for themselves, they exist for the car, humans are independant beings with free will. And its not a myth that workers can attain better living standards easier and quicker by going along with Oppression. For example, Mexicans comming to America to make more money, rather than try fix conditions at home, guess what, for the individual and the short term it works. Stepping on other workers have gotten many a worker a raise or a promotion.

Talking about rationality and reason in Society is not as easy as talking about it in the Sciences, because Humans are not Robots, they are people with free wills, desires, and natural Morality.
By your logic, time does not exist because it is not a material thing.

MrDoom

24th February 2007, 01:24

I would only support the death penalty for the top-brass bourgeois leaders.

piet11111

24th February 2007, 02:38

i am pro-death penalty

in some cases the criminal can not be rehabilitated and as such they should be permanently removed as they are a threat to society.
much like putting down a rabid dog imo.

capitalists facists murderers rapists etc etc why should we even be bothered to attempt to rehabilitate them ?
(just curious on your reasoning im certain some can actually be rehabilitated)

RGacky3

24th February 2007, 04:21

Originally posted by Muigwithania+February 23, 2007 11:08 pm--> (Muigwithania @ February 23, 2007 11:08 pm)
[email protected] 21, 2007 09:19 pm
LSD.

You act as if Society and Human kind have a mass concience. They don't, every single person thinks for himself, and without Morality will do what is best for himself, not Society as a whole. You talk about making a social system, but who makes social systems? Individuals. Society IS NOT OBJECTIVE, society is'nt a physical thing, its a word to describe human relationships, when I say objective I mean it has existance apart from our perception, which it does'nt, it has as much existance as Marriage or laws do, which only exist subjectively. Society is not like a car at all, because parts in a car don't think for themselves, they exist for the car, humans are independant beings with free will. And its not a myth that workers can attain better living standards easier and quicker by going along with Oppression. For example, Mexicans comming to America to make more money, rather than try fix conditions at home, guess what, for the individual and the short term it works. Stepping on other workers have gotten many a worker a raise or a promotion.

Talking about rationality and reason in Society is not as easy as talking about it in the Sciences, because Humans are not Robots, they are people with free wills, desires, and natural Morality.
By your logic, time does not exist because it is not a material thing. [/b]
Thats a philisophical question, but technically yes, it has no Objective existance, only something we measure things by. Like saying does an Inch exist? Not really.

LSD

25th February 2007, 06:01

You act as if Society and Human kind have a mass concience. They don't, every single person thinks for himself, and without Morality will do what is best for himself, not Society as a whole.

You're talking about personal ethics, I'm talking about social policy. But since this thread is about the death penalty, mine is the only discussion that's relevent.

People do what they do for millions of reasons, some of them "moral", some of them practical, most of them subjective. But this thread isn't about what motivates man, it's about what makes a good legal system and whether or not executions should be a part of that system.

And while you're right in that individuals will never live their lives based solely on rationality, we still need to construct as rational as possible a civil society.

You say that society is not objective, but it's a hell of a lot more objective than "morality" which is why "morals" can play no part in how we structure our formalized governance.

The decision of whether or not to execute must be based solely on the rational considerations of society, just like every other aspect of how we construct post-revolutionary society.

'Cause again, for many homosexuality is just as "immoral" as "murder" is to you; if we were to consider every single person's subjective value system before writing our laws, therefore, we would be obligated to criminalize gay sex.

Obviously no one here supports doing that.

Human beings have "rights" because they are members of society and society exists to maximize bennefit to those which compose it. They, therefore, have the right to have as much gay sex as they want. They also have the right not to be killed.

But, sometimes, society's interest in stopping them from having gay sex outweighs their right to have it, such as when the person they're having sex with doesn't consent.

Likewise, sometimes their right not to be killed is outweighed by some competing interest, like of a child they're holding captive to be freed; or of a grieving populace to be rid of its war criminals.

Obviously those cases need to be carefully considered and rationally analyzed; but a blanket condemnation of the death penalty, no matter how "moral" it might seem, serves nothing but your own subjective sense of ethics.

Something for which no one but yourself gives a damn.