the great ILX capital punishment debate

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

http://www.ablecatering.co.nz/images/whynot.jpg

― and what, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:53 (nineteen years ago)

haha

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:53 (nineteen years ago)

is your day really boring ethan?

― Ms Misery, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:53 (nineteen years ago)

for both of you two i will make an exception

― modestmickey, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:53 (nineteen years ago)

(not you, sam)

― modestmickey, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:53 (nineteen years ago)

no, absolutely not, never, not under any circumstances.

― Ed, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:54 (nineteen years ago)

Ed otm. Also, hi mickey!

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:54 (nineteen years ago)

I'm going to keep looking at this thread while it's small. And then I'm never, ever going to click on it again.

― Ms Misery, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:55 (nineteen years ago)

http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-07/capital-punishment.html

― and what, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:57 (nineteen years ago)

Look at this funny comic. It features ants eating people:

http://www.joshreads.com/images/07/04/i070415lio.jpg

― kingfish, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:58 (nineteen years ago)

It's very interesting when atheists are against it. Ed presumably you have always been firmly against it?

― blueski, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:58 (nineteen years ago)

lmao @ fake 'get fuzzy'

ps i'm an atheist & i'm against it

― and what, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:59 (nineteen years ago)

man get fuzzy really has gone downhill in the past 5 years. it used to be actually funny.

― Mr. Que, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:00 (nineteen years ago)

i don't have an immediate and over-riding philosophical problem with the state killing people, and i don't believe that all life is inherently "sacred." but the instrument of capital punishment is and has been and maybe always will be egregiously unfairly and inconsistently applied, and it seems to have no effect on anyone's decision-making before committing bad acts, so a complete and indefinite moratorium seems like the best idea.

― gff, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:03 (nineteen years ago)

It's very interesting when atheists are against it.

why would you think that?

― RJG, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:03 (nineteen years ago)

I don't really think it's a religious issue.

― Ms Misery, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:04 (nineteen years ago)

death penalty thread + atheism thread = YESSSSS

― and what, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:05 (nineteen years ago)

yeah, I don't get why it's particularly interesting when atheists are against it. there are many, many reasons to be against it.

― horseshoe, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:05 (nineteen years ago)

i'm an atheist and my primary reason for being against capital punishment is horror and disgust at the very real possibility of mistakes being made. nowhere in that idea is there a void left by the absence of a god.

― modestmickey, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:07 (nineteen years ago)

don't forget that capital punishment is hugely expensive - far more so than life w/o parole

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:08 (nineteen years ago)

If I think of why I'm against it the most basic response is that I wouldn't wish to be directly intentionally responsible for a person's death...

I think this is still a kneejerk effect of religious conditioning sometimes though. Conscience and guilt inform my perspective to such an extent.

Why might firm atheists believe it is fundamentally wrong and abhorrent to punish criminals by death under any circumstances?

gff's point about practice hampering theory (how i read it) makes sense i guess.

― blueski, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:08 (nineteen years ago)

as an atheist i think its fundamentally wrong for the state to have the power to kill people who are helplessly imprisoned

― and what, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:09 (nineteen years ago)

how is that question any different from asking "why would an atheist also be a vegan?"?

― the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:09 (nineteen years ago)

I have always been against it. I don't allow that any human being can make the decision to end another's life. capital punishment is just as egregious as murder.

― Ed, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:10 (nineteen years ago)

Why might firm atheists believe it is fundamentally wrong and abhorrent to punish criminals by death under any circumstances?

for the reasons everyone else has given.

― Ms Misery, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:10 (nineteen years ago)

one of dostoevsky's most frequent quotes is "without god, anything is permitted." it's also one of his most frustrating quotes because it's utter horse shit.

― modestmickey, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:10 (nineteen years ago)

how much should a British Atheist tip a bartender in America while watching a football game?

― Mr. Que, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:11 (nineteen years ago)

Another vote for 100% against.

― Ben Boyerrr, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:12 (nineteen years ago)

it seems to be a common misconception that because atheist don't have rules handed out by some fictitious hippie (or at least beardy bloke) that it is impossible for us to have any kind of morals or ethics.

― Ed, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:12 (nineteen years ago)

1) fearing state having too much power

2) pragmatic reasons: like Tracer said, it's expensive.

3) as practiced currently in the US, it disproportionately affects the poor and racial minorities.

4) not necessarily an effective deterrent

5) philosophies of discipline that focus more on rehabilitation than punishment

6) as practiced currently in the US, innocent people are put to death

finally I don't think valuing life is an inherently religious value.

― horseshoe, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:12 (nineteen years ago)

guys, don't be bringing the dostoevsky in these ridiculous ways.

― horseshoe, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:13 (nineteen years ago)

how much should a British Atheist tip a bartender in America while watching a football game?

-- Mr. Que, Wednesday, April 18, 2007 12:11 PM (37 seconds ago)

he should pass on the tip by bringing his own bottle opener

― and what, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:14 (nineteen years ago)

lol mickey quoting a bearded guy

― Mr. Que, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:15 (nineteen years ago)

non-religious reasons to be against capital punishment people have given:

prospect of inconsistency (law enforcers can't be trusted?)
prospect of unfair sentence (insufficient/incorrect evidence)
expensive
all decisions to kill are equal (v interesting)

― blueski, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:16 (nineteen years ago)

it's not so much prospect of inconsistency as suspicion of states. which history has borne out pretty thoroughly.

― horseshoe, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:17 (nineteen years ago)

Tracer's reason given is the only unethical one.

Ed's reason given is the only one that can't be applied to corporal punishement.

― blueski, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:17 (nineteen years ago)

are you arguing that religion is the only ground for ethics?

― horseshoe, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:19 (nineteen years ago)

blueski it's an ethical argument if you consider that millions are spent per death row inmate that could be better spent on rehabilitation, more comprehensive parole treatment, or any number of other things

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:20 (nineteen years ago)

tracer's is ethical, too

crosspost

― RJG, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:20 (nineteen years ago)

i think there are non-supernatural reasons to not want to murder bad people

― and what, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:20 (nineteen years ago)

http://www.deathreference.com/images/medd_01_img0059.jpg
^^^this is why i'm against the death penalty

― ghost rider, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:22 (nineteen years ago)

it is a mystery

― and what, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:22 (nineteen years ago)

I was all for capital punishment until those dudes hanged Bjork in that movie, wtf she was just trying to protect her kid, fags.

― nickalicious, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:22 (nineteen years ago)

haha spoiler alert I guess

― nickalicious, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:22 (nineteen years ago)

i don't need some pissed-off ghost haunting my shit, all i'm saying

― ghost rider, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:23 (nineteen years ago)

expense becomes an ethical issue once qualified in that way (of course many of you would think that was sufficiently implied from the start - i wouldn't say you were wrong)

and sure as eggs is eggs i didn't mean to imply that i think 'valuing life is an inherently religious value'.

― blueski, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:23 (nineteen years ago)

http://img499.imageshack.us/img499/8502/iiam29pb.gif
U GONNA GET HAUNTED

― and what, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:24 (nineteen years ago)

nor 'exclusively' a religious value

― blueski, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:24 (nineteen years ago)

well then what are you talking about?

― horseshoe, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:24 (nineteen years ago)

haha great thread!

― HI DERE, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:26 (nineteen years ago)

i was asking what reasons atheists would give for being against CP. it's right up there dude. xp

― blueski, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:27 (nineteen years ago)

The Great ILE Abortion Debate

― HI DERE, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:27 (nineteen years ago)

haha "i don't need some pissed-off ghost haunting my shit, all i'm saying"--Harry Blackmun, on his late in life change of heart on the constitutionality of the death penalty

― horseshoe, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:27 (nineteen years ago)

so what's the deal with these things in the middle of car wheels anyway?

― blueski, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:28 (nineteen years ago)

is anyone here in favor of the current state of executions

― deej, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:30 (nineteen years ago)

They aren't frequent enough.

― HI DERE, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:30 (nineteen years ago)

executions for some, miniature american flags for others

― and what, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:31 (nineteen years ago)

There should be an American Godzilla movie where Godzilla comes to Washington, DC, and it should be called CAPITOL PUNISHMENT.

― nickalicious, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:32 (nineteen years ago)

I need at least one execution every hour on the hour to feel satisfied that justice is truly being served.

― HI DERE, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:32 (nineteen years ago)

think ed's was as near an answer as is any use to you, blueski--an atheist might give any reason in the world except cuz God told me not to or because I'll get in trouble later on

why think it's interesting that a nonreligious person could be against capital punishment when you could be thinking about a v religious person being for and responsible for administering capital punishment?

― RJG, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:33 (nineteen years ago)

I think a religious person is going to be more likely to endorse capital punishment because there is an afterlife for the person's soul to go to.

― HI DERE, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:34 (nineteen years ago)

it really depends on the religious person, but yeah, there are certainly religious arguments to be made in both directions.

― horseshoe, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:34 (nineteen years ago)

why so interested, RJG?

― blueski, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:34 (nineteen years ago)

ok my cursor was over the text of blueski's question & i thought it read 'whats the deal with these things in the middle of ear weels anyway' so i mulled for a second & assumed he meant 'things in the middle of ear weevils' & was making some kind of clever countpoint to someone by referring to wraath of khan

― deeznuts, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:35 (nineteen years ago)

sorry, blueski?

or sorry, blueski

― RJG, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:35 (nineteen years ago)

wtf happened to my post?

I invited Dan to move to TX many posts ago.

― Ms Misery, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:35 (nineteen years ago)

an atheist might give any reason in the world except cuz God told me not to or because I'll get in trouble later on

yes, and i wanted to see what reasons people gave, for i was lacking inspiration.

― blueski, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:36 (nineteen years ago)

thou shalt not be interested!

― RJG, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:36 (nineteen years ago)

death to all weevils

― blueski, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:36 (nineteen years ago)

why think it's interesting that a nonreligious person could be against capital punishment when you could be thinking about a v religious person being for and responsible for administering capital punishment?

do you think the latter is much more interesting than the former, generally (because it may well be somewhere like ILX)?

― blueski, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:39 (nineteen years ago)

Some days I think it should be compulsory.

― Michael White, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:41 (nineteen years ago)

sorry? I don't understand what you mean

God told moses to tell everyone not to kill anyone and wrote it down for him and everything

― RJG, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:42 (nineteen years ago)

I find it funny that anyone who is anti-war will most certianly bring up "thou shalt not kill". Never mentioning the fact that in the rest of the old Testament that God sent the Jews into battle all the time. They where to kill their enemy and drive them into the sea!
Which leads to the fact that "thou shalt not kill" does not mean thou shalt not go to war and vanquish your enemy. Peace does not and can not exist with out war.

― and what, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:48 (nineteen years ago)

Most of the religious right arguments pro-Capital Punnishment are based around the whole "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" thing, conveniently omitting the "thou shalt not kill" thing.

Just sayin', like.

― Masonic Boom, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:52 (nineteen years ago)

Atheists don't want to kill people because nothing comes afterwards so the decision is final: a hefty responsibility!

Religious folk don't mind killing people because they know that the condemned man can just say sorry to Jesus and go to heaven anyway. They are big softies really.

― Eyeball Kicks, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:58 (nineteen years ago)

sending someone to heaven doesn't sound like v convincing punishment

― RJG, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:00 (nineteen years ago)

unless heaven is rubbish, after all

― RJG, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:00 (nineteen years ago)

nobody believes in heaven.

― horseshoe, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:01 (nineteen years ago)

tell that to warren beatty

― the schef (adam schefter ha ha), Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:01 (nineteen years ago)

Capital Gettingthemthefuckoutofourhair

― blueski, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:01 (nineteen years ago)

i only believe in rock n roll heaven

― ghost rider, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:02 (nineteen years ago)

do you like capital punishment, blueski?

― RJG, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:02 (nineteen years ago)

yeah do you LIKE IT do you LIKE IT

― Mr. Que, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:03 (nineteen years ago)

http://www.michaelcross.me.uk/jc/images/nf-f.jpg

― ghost rider, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:03 (nineteen years ago)

holy shit, i'm laughing at the need to incorporate a smoking cigarette attached to the tuners

― kingfish, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:05 (nineteen years ago)

I could say I don't like it. But what if somebody didn't believe me?

― blueski, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:05 (nineteen years ago)

I need to know that you will all believe me if I say I don't like it.

― blueski, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:06 (nineteen years ago)

will it be a lie?

― RJG, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:07 (nineteen years ago)

i don't think it would be.

― blueski, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:10 (nineteen years ago)

there is only one rationale for endorsing capital punishment, and that's the belief that revenge is an appropriate and healthy human motivation. Otherwise capital punishment serves no purpose.

Personally I think revenge is short-sighted, stupid, and unproductive soooo, y'know... I'm against the death penalty in all circumstances.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:13 (nineteen years ago)

to be honest, atheists seem to me to be the most stridently against the death penalty

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:15 (nineteen years ago)

i'm also against most incarceration, though

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:15 (nineteen years ago)

Shakey what if i caused you harm in some way?

― blueski, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:16 (nineteen years ago)

the athiest/religious thing seems entirely beside the point. From a practical standpoint, the death penalty serves no purpose - its expensive, it doesn't work as a deterrent, and it affords no opportunity for rehabilitation or conversion of the criminal to a productive member of society. Its wasteful.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:17 (nineteen years ago)

"I have always been against it. I don't allow that any human being can make the decision to end another's life. capital punishment is just as egregious as murder.

-- Ed, Wednesday, April 18, 2007 7:10 PM (1 hour ago)"

are you against war, too? where's the fun.

― That one guy that quit, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:18 (nineteen years ago)

ineffective deterrent! i shall add it to the list.

― blueski, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:18 (nineteen years ago)

I already said that! /invisible

― horseshoe, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:18 (nineteen years ago)

blueski, if you did I'd probably try to stop you or get away from you. Afterwards I'd like ensure that you maybe didn't hurt anyone else (or me) again, but there are ways to do that without killing you.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:19 (nineteen years ago)

yeah sorry horseshoe i missed your list upthread

― blueski, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:20 (nineteen years ago)

you haven't met blueski

crosspost

― RJG, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:21 (nineteen years ago)

kittydukakis.jpg

― and what, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:21 (nineteen years ago)

i'm not so into categorical never-never-never 'absolute wrong' type arguments. partly because there's no 'argument' there, it's just an assertion into the void.

but also ed's is poorly worded. it's not a human being's decision, it's a legal system's tradition/mandate/what-have-you.

― That one guy that quit, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:22 (nineteen years ago)

it's my going home time now.

― blueski, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:23 (nineteen years ago)

haha weren't you one of those that was like abolish all guns everywhere?

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:23 (nineteen years ago)

i mean, probably not, but still

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:24 (nineteen years ago)

Barlow: Mayor Quimby, you're well-known, sir, for your lenient stance on crime. But suppose for a second that YOUR house was ransacked by thugs, YOUR family tied up in the basement with socks in their mouths, you try to open the door but there's too much BLOOD on the KNOB--
Quimby: What is your question?
Barlow: My question is about the budget, sir.

― and what, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:25 (nineteen years ago)

who me? yeah I'd like to ban guns altogether, but I'm resigned to the fact that that's a practical impossibility.

x-post

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:26 (nineteen years ago)

This is Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee (R) - Ark. playing with his band, Capitol Offense.

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/1158/huckabeeguitar300vb7.jpg

I do not support this except in extreme cases.

― Pleasant Plains, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:26 (nineteen years ago)

Like, if the band booked for the prom was stuck in traffic and Capitol Offense was already on the premises, waiting to play for free.

― Pleasant Plains, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:27 (nineteen years ago)

i didn't mean you Shakey! for some reason i thought That guy who quit was one of the gun abolishers.

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:28 (nineteen years ago)

wait, did the logo get photoshopped out of that headstock?

― kingfish, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:29 (nineteen years ago)

it's a legal system's tradition/mandate/what-have-you

a collection of human beings, also known as society

― Ed, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:30 (nineteen years ago)

Umm re: atheism, it makes perfect sense to me that people who are skeptical about the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent higher power managing matters of life and death would be equally skeptical of the state claiming to be able to do the same. Also I'd suggest that ritualized killing usually proceeds from some religious or traditional logic, which is why some people -- if you present them with all the logistical arguments for why the death penalty system is terrifically broken -- will insist that there are just some crimes that call for death, whether it's logical or not. That's a faith-based argument, this idea that either the divine or the gut just flat-out dictates a particular penalty, sensible or not.

Because the main issue here really isn't ethical: it's that we waste incredible amounts of time and effort to kill people, even though killing them has no real crime-prevention benefit, even though we quite often kill or prepare to kill innocent people, and even though the whole basis of the penalty -- that certain crimes are just so heinous -- doesn't work at all. (Or maybe it does work, and we just happen to live in a country where a poor minority with a bad lawyer killing a rich white person is genuinely more heinous than the other way around.)

― nabisco, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:33 (nineteen years ago)

<I>Why might firm atheists believe it is fundamentally wrong and abhorrent to punish criminals by death under any circumstances? </I>

Various reasons. I don't think it is helpful - it hasn't deterred other people from comitting crime - and economical - it's far costlier than life without parole (as someone mentioned already - nor do I think people/the state have the right to kill someone. I mean, it doesn't really seem to make much sense to me: You killed, so I have the right to kill you. I know that might be a silly argument, but I can't help thinking like that. Also, and very importantly, what if later on it was discovered the guy/woman was innocent? Bring'em back to life? Hmm, hard to do.

― stevienixed, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:41 (nineteen years ago)

[Removed Illegal Image]

i don't believe in God as he/she/it has been explained to me, but there are a small number of things i believe in with the kind of blind faith usually reserved for God, and one of them is that killing someone as part of the exercise of justice is way fucked up and should be avoided. give it a label, call it fundamental respect for human existence or whatever, but it's basically an instinct that i have found myself in possession of.

― Roberto Spiralli, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:50 (nineteen years ago)

I love it when rockstars let the guitar smoke the cigarette. Rhett Miller did it once at Fez and I fell in love with him, until he started writing all his songs about that model.

― Laurel, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:52 (nineteen years ago)

give it a label, call it fundamental respect for human existence or whatever, but it's basically an instinct that i have found myself in possession of.

its called "logic"

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:53 (nineteen years ago)

the idea that certain crimes are so heinous doesn't really fly with me, either, but it puts a person in the uncomfortable position of having to side with pedophilic murderers and racial supremacists and so on.

which is why we're all better off sticking to the sheer logistics of execution.

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:53 (nineteen years ago)

sticking to criticizing the sheer etc.

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:54 (nineteen years ago)

wait, did the logo get photoshopped out of that headstock?

Huckabee actually whitteled that guitar himself using a generic kit from Sear's.

― Pleasant Plains, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:54 (nineteen years ago)

but it puts a person in the uncomfortable position of having to side with pedophilic murderers and racial supremacists and so on.

No, it doesn't.

― Michael White, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:56 (nineteen years ago)

okay, "side" isn't the right word, but that's often how the argument gets misconstrued: "wait, you think the life of a pedophile is worth preserving? are you PRO-pedophilia????"

i mean, are you being willfully obtuse on purpose?

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:58 (nineteen years ago)

sorry, i'm crabby and haven't eaten lunch.

― river wolf, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 17:59 (nineteen years ago)

did you guys see the part in Ghostbusters II when the ghosts of the dudes who had died in the electric chair come back to haunt the cruel judge? that in itself is an argument against capital punishment

― homosexual II, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 18:08 (nineteen years ago)

"i didn't mean you Shakey! for some reason i thought That guy who quit was one of the gun abolishers.

-- river wolf, Wednesday, April 18, 2007 8:28 PM (2 hours ago)"

nope, not me. i think they're gay and that people who like them are creepy though, and i live in a country where they kind of are illegal to own already so it's not a pertinent question for me...

ed -- the idea laws or society is just a 'collection of humans' doesn't wash with me. i'd be very queasy about the right of a human being to lock someone up for life, but it's the law that does it, not an individual. if everything was just about human choices where do you get the moral authority to have any kind of justice system?

― That one guy that quit, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:31 (nineteen years ago)

but it's the law that does it, not an individual.

who do you think makes laws? And no inanimate thing is sending people down for life, a human being in a robe who is interpreting that human-written law or a dozen human beings doing the same are the ones who make that decision.

― Ms Misery, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:40 (nineteen years ago)

laws flow from precendent or the constitution or whatever, they're tested, they're modified, they're not written by just some guy in a room. and there are limits to the interpretation of these laws -- again, a judge has certain duties to these, he isn't (meant to be) just some guy. similarly there are limits placed on the jury.

but again if the legal system is just humans making decisions, how do you justify all the other incredibly cruel things the law does to lawbreakers?

― That one guy that quit, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:59 (nineteen years ago)

holy shit where did this hueg thread come from?

1) I am an atheist and I'm against it
2) "capital punishment turns the state into a murderer. but life in prison turns the state into a gay dungeonmaster" - emo phillips

― Edward III, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 21:03 (nineteen years ago)

but again if the legal system is just humans making decisions, how do you justify all the other incredibly cruel things the law does to lawbreakers?

Humans can incredibly fucking cruel to each other! Seriously, I don't understand how you can say that human beings aren't responsible for laws. Of course it's not a single person writing them but people are writing them. They don't just pop out of the air.

― Ms Misery, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 21:16 (nineteen years ago)

what i was responding to was:

"I don't allow that any human being can make the decision to end another's life. capital punishment is just as egregious as murder.

-- Ed, Wednesday, April 18, 2007 7:10 PM (Yesterday)"

a law is made by humans, institutions, etc, etc, mediated by all sorts of shit. that's plainly different from what ed's implying, that it's just a human being's [individual's] decision.

― That one guy that quit, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 21:24 (nineteen years ago)

I didn't get that from what he said.

― Ms Misery, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 21:25 (nineteen years ago)

hahaha The onion has this one just in time for today's discussion: When I Die, I'm Going To Haunt The Fuck Out Of You People

― kingfish, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 21:27 (nineteen years ago)

Laws are made by human, be it humans writing books in early history or parliaments, or senates. No matter if they are deriving them from past experience they are deriving them from human experience or from the experiences of our evolutionary ancestors. They are nothing if not human.

― Ed, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 21:29 (nineteen years ago)

The death penalty would probably function more effectively if all accused were processed through some impartial machine called "the law." But what machine there is calls on countless people to exercise their discretion, and it's the cumulative effect of individual discretion that makes the system so problematic.

That said, Sam, I think his point is that there's a larger ideal of "the law" here, which is made by people but also aspires to be bigger than people -- basically the same here as "the state," which is also made up of people but contains enough history and ideal and whatnot that it's not just about the people weilding it at any given moment! I mean, grr, the argument gets pointless, cause there's an interplay of "individual people" and "societal construct" here, it's always definitely both.

― nabisco, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 21:31 (nineteen years ago)

if all laws are just human in that way, how do you justify any laws at all? it's pish to say they're derived from 'human experience' -- they aren't. they're derived from (in the example of fraud laws vs theft laws) naked class prejudice. they're derived from all sorts of things.

"But what machine there is calls on countless people to exercise their discretion, and it's the cumulative effect of individual discretion that makes the system so problematic."

that's true of everything though, doesn't specifically relate to either the law or the death penalty.

― That one guy that quit, Thursday, 19 April 2007 08:27 (nineteen years ago)

Pardon me for my ignorance but someone way up there said that capital punishment was more expensive than life w/o parole. I'm really not in favour of capital punishment but i dont really understand this.

Could someone explain why killing an inmate after 5/10/x years is more expensive than having him in jail for 10/20/50 years?

― Jibe, Thursday, 19 April 2007 09:08 (nineteen years ago)

the appeals process

― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 19 April 2007 09:38 (nineteen years ago)

i'm against the death penalty but "the state doesn't have the right to kill anyone" seems a bit ill-thought-out - doesn't that imply that no government has the right to declare war under any circumstances?

― J.D., Thursday, 19 April 2007 09:42 (nineteen years ago)

those people belong to a different sovereign system - even in war, many governments don't have the right to kill their own citizens (except in extreme circumstances governed by ancient military codes)

― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 19 April 2007 10:14 (nineteen years ago)

all kinds of rights get flouted when it comes to war tho.

― blueski, Thursday, 19 April 2007 10:16 (nineteen years ago)

i'm against the death penalty but "the state doesn't have the right to kill anyone" seems a bit ill-thought-out - doesn't that imply that no government has the right to declare war under any circumstances?

That is a pretty good baseline yes.

― Ed, Thursday, 19 April 2007 10:16 (nineteen years ago)

now why would an atheist be anti-war? (i kid i kid)

― blueski, Thursday, 19 April 2007 10:16 (nineteen years ago)

War is declared on other states. Individual participation is then (in many cases) a voluntary matter. Obviously there are issues with involuntary draft and the (yes, inevitable) involvement of non-combatants but they'd belong in The Great ILX Just War Debate.

Also you could argue the state doesn't have the right to kill anyone in the same way that I don't have the right to kill anyone - in that there are exceptional circumstances, e.g. self defence/protection of the general population.

― ledge, Thursday, 19 April 2007 10:19 (nineteen years ago)

"those people belong to a different sovereign system - even in war, many governments don't have the right to kill their own citizens (except in extreme circumstances governed by ancient military codes)

-- Tracer Hand, Thursday, April 19, 2007 1:14 PM (14 minutes ago)"

sure but ed's position is governments/humans shalt not kill ANYONE not just citizens. and wars involve sending citizens to death, it's just not predictable which ones.

"Also you could argue the state doesn't have the right to kill anyone in the same way that I don't have the right to kill anyone - in that there are exceptional circumstances, e.g. self defence/protection of the general population.

-- ledge, Thursday, April 19, 2007 1:19 PM (9 minutes ago)"

um i think the death penalty invokes the 'exceptional circumstances' you're talking about.

― That one guy that quit, Thursday, 19 April 2007 10:30 (nineteen years ago)

Well no - at a personal level self defence, certainly the kind of self defence which would lead to someone's death, can't be premeditated; and the same goes for the state. So they might be licensed to terminate a gunman or terrorist who is immediately endangering the lives of others, but if that person is already in their custody and there are other means of controlling them then the state has no such right.

― ledge, Thursday, 19 April 2007 10:36 (nineteen years ago)

Religious folk don't mind killing people because they know that the condemned man can just say sorry to Jesus and go to heaven anyway. They are big softies really.

Wouldn't religious people be more likely to believe that the guilty party would go straight to hell(assuming they hadn't pleaded guilty and repented and all that gubbins)? You don't get to say sorry to Jesus after you die.

Every practicing Christian I know is opposed to the death penalty, every random heathen I meet in the pub wants to string up pedlos and junkies and brown terrists.

― onimo, Thursday, 19 April 2007 10:47 (nineteen years ago)

"Well no - at a personal level self defence, certainly the kind of self defence which would lead to someone's death, can't be premeditated; and the same goes for the state. So they might be licensed to terminate a gunman or terrorist who is immediately endangering the lives of others, but if that person is already in their custody and there are other means of controlling them then the state has no such right.

-- ledge, Thursday, April 19, 2007 1:36 PM (17 minutes ago)"

i don't know why the state's rights stop short at this particular juncture for you. i mean for ed, the state does not have the right to stop a gunman/terrorist in those situations. you have to just let the situation run its course for some reason.

― That one guy that quit, Thursday, 19 April 2007 10:55 (nineteen years ago)

I said it was a baseline not an absolute. In the situation where a gunman/terrorist has to be stopped then every non-leathal means ought to be tried if possible but in the situation where you have limited time or no other option then force and in extremis, lethal force could be used to save the lives of others. However you only have to look to Jean Charles De Menezes to see where incorrect judgements have been made.

― Ed, Thursday, 19 April 2007 10:58 (nineteen years ago)

can't think of any other incidents where the police shot down a suspect, let alone any where it was actually the 'right man' (in UK).

― blueski, Thursday, 19 April 2007 11:02 (nineteen years ago)

Absolutely. It's a question of reasonable means or force - a kind of Occam's razor if you like, force should not be multiplied beyond necessity. xp.

― ledge, Thursday, 19 April 2007 11:03 (nineteen years ago)

"In the situation where a gunman/terrorist has to be stopped then every non-leathal means ought to be tried if possible but in the situation where you have limited time or no other option then force and in extremis, lethal force could be used to save the lives of others."

seems to contradict

"I don't allow that any human being can make the decision to end another's life. capital punishment is just as egregious as murder.

-- Ed, Wednesday, April 18, 2007 7:10 PM (Yesterday)"

the police usually do get the wrong guy, but the right has to be available surely?

― That one guy that quit, Thursday, 19 April 2007 11:04 (nineteen years ago)

Derek Bentley
Mohammed Abdulkahar (injured)

Can't think of any more right now. However, british police are not that trigger happy.

Although that statement is an absolute, the world is imperfect and sometimes a trade off has to be made, despite the moral imperfection in having to do so. After someone has been caught and tried and is locked up and is no danger to society, I find that it is much much more immoral to kill them.

― Ed, Thursday, 19 April 2007 11:11 (nineteen years ago)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Stanley

Shot for carrying a table leg and being nearly Irish.

― onimo, Thursday, 19 April 2007 11:58 (nineteen years ago)

... beat me to it

― Tom D., Thursday, 19 April 2007 11:59 (nineteen years ago)

... I got mistaken for an Irishman the other day! I better stop carrying table legs around with me in future!

― Tom D., Thursday, 19 April 2007 12:00 (nineteen years ago)

sure, it's a well-known incident. i still think the state needs to have the right to kill people in exceptional circumstances. the scandal there was as much if not more the exoneration of the officers than the original procedural error unless we're saying the state has no power of action because sometimes the wrong people get hurt. innocent people get locked up as well; that isn't usually mounted as an argument against incarceration in general.

― That one guy that quit, Thursday, 19 April 2007 12:02 (nineteen years ago)

There's obv. a difference between having a right in general, and the justification for using that right in a specific circumstance.

― ledge, Thursday, 19 April 2007 12:05 (nineteen years ago)

ten months pass...

99% of Sun readers want the death penalty back. Apparently.

I'm assuming this survey has been fiddled in some way.

― Matt DC, Monday, 25 February 2008 14:07 (eighteen years ago)

"Hey, here's an idea, lets phone up a load of grieving parents whose children have been murdered and ask them to give a rational opinion on capital punishment."

I think the Sun must have felt genuinely betrayed that Sarah Payne's mum went "erm, no thanks".

Anyway, 9/10 for cynicism, could have done with more Maddy content.

― Matt DC, Monday, 25 February 2008 14:09 (eighteen years ago)

Any excuse to print a picture of Ruth Ellis's tits, huh?

― Dom Passantino, Monday, 25 February 2008 14:09 (eighteen years ago)

In a somewhat confusing move though, the editorial says the death penalty is wrong and it shouldn't come back, and that the survey merely demonstrates that people think that justice has failed in this country, and Something Should Be Done.

― ledge, Monday, 25 February 2008 14:13 (eighteen years ago)

The top "discussion" piece below the death penalty article is about the Eduardo tackle.

Is the Bulger mother really saying 10-year-olds should hang? She has lack-of-empathy issues, srsly.

― Mark C, Monday, 25 February 2008 14:19 (eighteen years ago)

probably also kid-tortured-to-death and guilt issues too tho.

― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Monday, 25 February 2008 14:21 (eighteen years ago)

well, my sympathies are with those poor child murderers, and obviously martin taylor.

― darraghmac, Monday, 25 February 2008 14:45 (eighteen years ago)

Every time I try to open that Sun link windows tells me that Firefox has stopped working. I think it's trying to save me from myself.

― Ned Trifle II, Monday, 25 February 2008 15:04 (eighteen years ago)

However only 67% of sun readers thought Al-fayed was talking bollocks. That means thats 22% of sun readers who want to bring back the death penalty think that the royal family set out to murder Diana, that means that they 22% of Sun readers are in favour of executing members of the royal family. Wow.

― Ned Trifle II, Monday, 25 February 2008 15:10 (eighteen years ago)

ha ha kudos

― blueski, Monday, 25 February 2008 15:12 (eighteen years ago)

xpost

Lots of applause. Someone should really po ofver to The Sun website and point that out to them.

― Stone Monkey, Monday, 25 February 2008 17:09 (eighteen years ago)

or even pop over...

― Stone Monkey, Monday, 25 February 2008 17:10 (eighteen years ago)

I’ve always argued against capital punishment, or at least justify my opposition to it in my own head, by arguing that if we’re to agree with Hobbes assertion that the purpose of government is to provide basic security and public order than capital punishment should not be allowable since the state would be contradicting the first point with little, or no benefit to the second.

― Mr. Goodman, Monday, 25 February 2008 19:12 (eighteen years ago)

We do not have capital punishment here (Norway), and life imprisonment is not happening either.

― Pål Útlendi, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 02:49 (eighteen years ago)

-- ledge, Monday, 25 February 2008 14:13 (Yesterday) Bookmark Link

.. which is probably wayyy more than could have been reasonably be expected from the Sun.

― Mark G, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 09:45 (eighteen years ago)

Oh hai, no one reads leader columns other than journalists and people with a personal interest in the media. Six pages of BRING BACK HANGING followed by one column going "actually no let's not"? It's there so the Sun can defend itself to its critics, but there shouldn't be much doubt which side of the debate it's placed itself on.

― Matt DC, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 09:53 (eighteen years ago)

One thing's for sure - London will be getting plenty of CAPITAL PUNISHMENT if BONKERS BORIS is elected Mayor!

― Dingbod Kesterson, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 10:14 (eighteen years ago)

We do not have capital punishment here (Norway), and life imprisonment is not happening either.

It is political correctness going mad

― Tom D., Tuesday, 26 February 2008 10:16 (eighteen years ago)

and life imprisonment is not happening either

Has anyone told Geir about this?

― Dingbod Kesterson, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 10:17 (eighteen years ago)

Mandatory life imprisonment for being insufficiently melodic

― Tom D., Tuesday, 26 February 2008 10:18 (eighteen years ago)

I've come to the position that punishment without practical benefit - punishment just as retribution - is pretty much pointless. Deterrence, protection for society, rehabilitation; these are valid benefits. But the only benefit conferred by capital punishment - and by our current system of incarceration, to judge by the burgeoning prison numbers - is to satisfy people's moral indignation.

― ledge, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 10:37 (eighteen years ago)

that's two different things, capital punishment and prison overpopulation. there are too many people inside, but most of the crims filling out the prisons are not there for life terms. i think even norway has life terms for the "criminially insane" (whatever that means: basically dudes who will kill again), just not in yer actual prisons.

playing devil's advocate -- obviously "satisfying people's moral indignation" is not always a good thing. but i wouldn't write it off altogether. moral indignation is just as real as the abstract "protection for society".

― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 10:53 (eighteen years ago)

Oh I don't entirely write it off (and neither am I immune from moral indignation myself). But I would happily forgo a little satisfaction on that front if, say, a significantly successful means of rehabilitation could be demonstrated.

― ledge, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 10:59 (eighteen years ago)

if you've ever been the victim of a violent crime, imprisonment for the offender is hardly abstract

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 11:07 (eighteen years ago)

sure, but "protection for society" is. offenders are not imprisoned to protect individuals, nor "on behalf of" the victims.

― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 11:09 (eighteen years ago)

It helps if the police can be arsed pursuing the case, of course

― Tom D., Tuesday, 26 February 2008 11:10 (eighteen years ago)

Prison overcrowding is mostly due to tens of thousands of petty criminals rather than a few dozen murderers. Obviously rehabilitation makes sense if you can get someone off drugs and give them some skills so they can get work rather and stop burgling houses, but I don't think many people would be too fussed about rehabilitating serial killers.

― Nasty, Brutish & Short, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 11:14 (eighteen years ago)

offenders are not imprisoned to protect individuals, nor "on behalf of" the victims.

so what, o great mage, are they imprisoned for??

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 11:15 (eighteen years ago)

xposts.. Some offenders are clearly imprisoned to protect the public.

if you've ever been the victim of a violent crime, imprisonment for the offender is hardly abstract

I don't think that victims of crime should have a say in sentencing because they are too emotionally involved - otoh clearly their feelings should not be discounted. I'm interested in restorative justice, where the victim and offender can be brought together to try and achieve restitution for the victim and reform for the offender.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice

― ledge, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 11:17 (eighteen years ago)

offenders are not imprisoned to protect individuals, nor "on behalf of" the victims.

so what, o great mage, are they imprisoned for??

-- Tracer Hand, Tuesday, February 26, 2008 11:15 AM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

you're on some consumer-age jurisprudence shit here

― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 11:19 (eighteen years ago)

otoh clearly their feelings should not be discounted

Why?

― Tom D., Tuesday, 26 February 2008 11:21 (eighteen years ago)

Am I right in thinking that impersonating a Chelsea Pensioner is still punishable by hanging? I remember that not all of these nineteenth-century laws were repealed.

― Dingbod Kesterson, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 11:21 (eighteen years ago)

Some offenders are clearly imprisoned to protect the public.

yah but not individuals -- that's the principle anyway. you're tried for violation of the law.

― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 11:23 (eighteen years ago)

and the reason for that law is...

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 11:26 (eighteen years ago)

i'll answer for you. if a person does violent, illegal things to someone else, removing that person from the community so that they can't do violent, illegal things again is a pretty important thing to do. the community benefits (and any victims also benefit, because they're members of that community.

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 11:27 (eighteen years ago)

What about people who are no danger either to individuals or society in general, who are unlikely to reoffend due to the circumstances of why they were banged up in the first place? Eg perjurers? Perpetrators of fraud? What's the point of locking them up if not punishment?

― Matt DC, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 11:27 (eighteen years ago)

I guess because even though I think rehabilitation is the highest goal, I have some sympathy for the notion that the justice system should not entirely be based around the well-being of the offender. Even with the best system of rehabilitation we're not going to end crime, and a society in which most victims of crime feel they are not getting any kind of justice is not really to be wished for.

xp to Tom D

― ledge, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 11:28 (eighteen years ago)

Deterrent (x-post).

― Mark C, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 11:29 (eighteen years ago)

Large fines might be an equally "effective" deterrent.

I would say that the main purpose of the majority of prison sentences is merely retributive punishment.

― ledge, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 11:32 (eighteen years ago)

But, within reason, it's not the severity of the punishment that's the deterrant, but the likelihood of getting caught. Admittedly this breaks down a bit with violent psychopaths.

― Matt DC, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 11:34 (eighteen years ago)

-- Tracer Hand, Tuesday, February 26, 2008 11:27 AM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

that's not the "reason for the law", that's an interpretation of the function of laws right now. but anyway you seem to be agreeing with me: offenders are not imprisoned to protect individuals, nor "on behalf of" the victims.

― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 11:34 (eighteen years ago)

Offenders are not imprisoned so as not to breach Government targets morelike

― Dingbod Kesterson, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 11:36 (eighteen years ago)

-- ledge, Tuesday, 26 February

yes and no. i think the idea of punishment having a cathartic function as well as the others isn't a bad thing, and if that function isn't satisfied, or isn't felt to be satisfied it can increase societies need for 'vengence' over time

it is more complicated in modern secular societies where the media plays a large role in this, as they are the transmitters of this cathartic function, and as the crimes that make the newspapers are largely abstracted from us, the perception of 'justice' can be skewed more easily, but i don't think thats to detract from the concept, or role it plays

― laxalt, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 11:37 (eighteen years ago)

Where are these societies where "the victims of crime feel they are not getting any kind of justice" and there is a widespread "need for vengeance"?

― Tom D., Tuesday, 26 February 2008 11:39 (eighteen years ago)

Er, this one, where 99% of people(*) want the death penalty?

(*) of a certain demographic

― ledge, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 11:41 (eighteen years ago)

And you honestly believe that shit?

― Tom D., Tuesday, 26 February 2008 11:43 (eighteen years ago)

I'm not sure at what point you think my credulity should be strained.

― ledge, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 11:44 (eighteen years ago)

surely we must be far enough into the future to have the Running Man now?

― Thomas, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 11:45 (eighteen years ago)

ANY poll which ends up 99% to 1% has to be taken with a pinch of salt, one feels... a poll on "Do you believe in murdering children" would probably be less one-sided!

― Tom D., Tuesday, 26 February 2008 11:49 (eighteen years ago)

hey enrique, WHAT'S THE RESAON FOR THE LAW, THEN?

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 11:51 (eighteen years ago)

I think Kafka should answer that one.

― Zelda Zonk, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 11:52 (eighteen years ago)

A "Do you believe in murdering children" poll would I suspect produce a very different result if conducted on the top deck of a south London bus at school home time.

― Dingbod Kesterson, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 11:52 (eighteen years ago)

Esp. if the pollees were Guardian journalists, right?

― Tom D., Tuesday, 26 February 2008 11:53 (eighteen years ago)

Absolutely - if we extended the poll to cover the borough of Camden...

― Dingbod Kesterson, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 11:54 (eighteen years ago)

hey enrique, WHAT'S THE RESAON FOR THE LAW, THEN?

-- Tracer Hand, Tuesday, February 26, 2008 11:51 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Link

historical precedent lol. rly tho.

― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 11:54 (eighteen years ago)

brilliant

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 11:59 (eighteen years ago)

It is a rather overwhelming poll result but I doubt it would be fixed (me so innocent & trusting). Majority of public still in favour of CP I believe.

― ledge, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 11:59 (eighteen years ago)

He was the king of bebop, after all.

― Dingbod Kesterson, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 12:00 (eighteen years ago)

Majority of public still in favour of CP I believe

When was it ever any different?

― Tom D., Tuesday, 26 February 2008 12:02 (eighteen years ago)

yeah if you're gonna rig a poll you don't make it 99% in favour, you go with something a bit more believable.

― blueski, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 12:03 (eighteen years ago)

If that were the case we'd have had half a century of Communist government by now (xp).

― Dingbod Kesterson, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 12:03 (eighteen years ago)

Andy Kershaw to thread.
xp.

― Ned Trifle II, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 12:03 (eighteen years ago)

yeah if you're gonna rig a poll you don't make it 99% in favour, you go with something a bit more believable

Double bluff

― Tom D., Tuesday, 26 February 2008 12:05 (eighteen years ago)

Maybe they only asked one person and one of their left toes was twitching in slight doubt.

― Dingbod Kesterson, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 12:07 (eighteen years ago)

It's probably not a rigged poll, but it's pretty much a self-selecting poll because only people who want the death penalty are going to bother phoning in. Especially given that it's in the Sun.

99% does seem pretty ridiculous though.

― Matt DC, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 12:09 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.dictatorofthemonth.com/Hoxha/Hoxha_mail.jpg

― Tom D., Tuesday, 26 February 2008 12:11 (eighteen years ago)

I doubt it was rigged. I saw it but never bothered phoning.It was a foregone conclusion what the result was going to be why waste a call?

― Ned Trifle II, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 12:13 (eighteen years ago)

wording is all

― laxalt, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 12:13 (eighteen years ago)

Incapacitation now serves as the principal justification for imprisonment in American criminal justice: offenders are imprisoned in the United States to restrain them from physically offending again while they are confined. The singular importance of incapacitation as a purpose of imprisonment is of relatively recent vintage. In the 1970s, the rhetoric of rehabilitation was a dominant feature of the literature and discussion of imprisonment, and the deterrence justification was more prominent than incapacitation in debates about punishment. It is only in the last fifteen years that something approaching a consensus about the priority of restraint has begun to emerge.
...
Although it is logically and legally possible to continue both to administer prisons and to use imprisonment as a punishment without the support of any specific justification or ideology of imprisonment, it would be difficult in a political democracy to do so without any positive sense of purpose or function for them. Those who work in prison, those who sentence offenders to prison, and those who support the institution in less palpable ways all need some paradigm of imprisonment, a sharp image of what prisons are needed for and may achieve.
...
Incapacitation rose to prominence by a process of elimination as scholarly and public debate about other functions of imprisonment undermined faith in prison rehabilitation as an effective process and in deterrence as a basis for making fine-tuned allocations of imprisonment resources.

Incapacitation: Penal Confinement and the Restraint of Crime By Franklin E. Zimring, Gordon Hawkins, 1997

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 12:14 (eighteen years ago)

SUN POLL EXCLUSIVE: 99% OF OUR READERS SAY YES TO PROPOSITION: "ALL SO-CALLED ASYLUM SEEKERS TO BE BEATEN TO WITHIN INCH OF LIVES BY IMMIGRATION OFFICERS LIKE JAMES WOODS IN SALVADOR SO AS TO TEACH THEM A LESSON AND NOT COME HERE AND WORK HARD AND SHOW ALL THE REST OF US BRITISH IDLERS UP AND ANYWAY THEY'RE ALL P4EDO TERRORISTS"

CELEBRITY BACKERS OF THIS MOTION INCLUDE!
AL MURRAY AS THE PUB LANDLORD
DAVID DICKINSON
JEREMY CLARKSON
SIMON COWELL
ROBERT KILROY SILK
JONATHAN ROSS
BEN ELTON
DEBORAH OUT OF DRAGONS DEN
TV'S GRAHAM NORTON
JASON OUT OF DANCING ON ICE

― Dingbod Kesterson, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 12:18 (eighteen years ago)

Those who work in prison, those who sentence offenders to prison, and those who support the institution in less palpable ways all need some paradigm of imprisonment

Imprisonment solely as punishment is a perfectly valid paradigm and ideology, albeit one I don't agree with. xp.

― ledge, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 12:21 (eighteen years ago)

The sun comments seem to be along the lines that people in prison have it cushy so it's better to kill them.

― Ned Trifle II, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 12:21 (eighteen years ago)

Up next: Sun poll on the re-introduction of crucifixion

― Tom D., Tuesday, 26 February 2008 12:23 (eighteen years ago)

Well, at least it gets you out in the open air.

― onimo, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 12:31 (eighteen years ago)

offenders are imprisoned in the United States to restrain them from physically offending again while they are confined.

That goes against the whole idea of sentences being proportionate to the crime. A petty thief is much more likely to reoffend than a spur-of-the-moment murderer, so they should get a much longer sentence.

― ledge, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 12:32 (eighteen years ago)

The sun comments seem to be along the lines that ~~people in prison~~ non-dom fat cats have it cushy so it's better to kill them.

Fixed.

― Dingbod Kesterson, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 12:36 (eighteen years ago)

I'm sure Nondom Fatcatz is a Turkish restaurant on Stoke Newington High Street

― Tom D., Tuesday, 26 February 2008 12:42 (eighteen years ago)

According to Michael Hann it's no good because the waiters don't serve ~~him~~ ordinary people.

― Dingbod Kesterson, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 12:54 (eighteen years ago)

haha, "Those who work in prison, those who sentence offenders to prison, and those who support the institution in less palpable ways all need some paradigm of imprisonment" is an outrageously pollyanna-ish way of putting it. and about the US system yet!

does that functionalist puff-piece on contemporary rhetorical justifications for imprisonment -- and again, it's about the US, which has an insane number of people banged up -- reflect historical reality or the political status quo? if the idea was public safety, ramping up recidivism rates by locking up minor offenders in conditions of unredeemed brutality would not be the way to do it. punishment is still if not the, then an order of the day.

anyway ffs it's still not saying we lock people up to protect individuals or on behalf of victims, which was my original point.

― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 12:59 (eighteen years ago)

ok!

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 14:28 (eighteen years ago)

five years pass...

Maryland Senate votes to abolish death penalty.

― ARE YOU HIRING A NANNY OR A SHAMAN (Phil D.), Thursday, 7 March 2013 16:21 (thirteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.