R.I.P. Stanley Williams

[TheYak]

*Sigh*  The word "you" without any quotation to suggest otherwise leads me to believe that was directed at my last post.  I am well aware of the novelty of proving one's innocence after they've already gone through the innocent-until-proven-guilty tapdance.  The usage of the "prove their innocence" term is directed in refutation of those who state that people may be executed before they can prove an incorrect guilty verdict.  We're talking about the 1% (or whatnot) that are found guilty but proven later to be innocent of their crimes. 

It would seem that your stance, pcj, is for the death penalty.  While I can see merit in both sides of the argument, executing someone based upon terms like "usually" and "fairly concrete evidence" seems both reckless and callous.  Arguing for capital punishment ought to include more absolutes since the punishment is the most absolute possible for that person.

[pcj]

"Absolutes" implies something which cannot be reached by humans.  We cannot produce anything that is "absolutely" anything in the truest sense of the word.  Therefore, we can only do our most.  Ensuring that "someone" gets a fair trial seems to me to be a step in the right direction.

Yes, it can be argued that "we" (humans), not being able to be "absolute" in anything, do make mistakes and that therefore we shouldn't have a death penalty.  However, in our judicial system, it is the prosecutor's responsibility to prove the defendant guilty, not the other way around.  There have been injustices committed against "innocent" people, but Mr. Williams was guilty.  He admitted it.

People have been cruel to people for as long as "we've" existed.  There are cold-blooded killers out there who pay no heed to the consequences of there actions; it won't make much difference to them whether or not they're executed or not.  And with this sort of people, it is likely that if simply released even after an "interminable" amount of time, that they will kill again and that a life sentence itself in the prison system is not effective to reform violent criminals but is merely a "delayed" death sentence - we're removing their lives from them, anyway; wouldn't it be more humane to end it quickly?  So we execute them in a much more humane manner than often they treated their victims, to remove them from society.  I liked the idea about exile, but that's just putting off the matter.  Exile to where?  Will there be guards keeping them from leaving?  Will we constantly provide them with food or leave them to fend for themselves?

Surely, if we don't have the right to determine the punishment of others, what gives us the right to judge them?

P.S. I included more "quotations" to make "you" "happy". 

[Helm]

but is merely a "delayed" death sentence - we're removing their lives from them, anyway; wouldn't it be more humane to end it quickly?

People keep saying this and it amazes me how easy it must be to so easily quantify what life and death is. Oh sure, life impisonment is just a "delayed" death sentence. Anybody would choose a quick death over 25 years in prison, right? Where do you get off? How can you so confidently say this in the place of the people who are in that position? Doesn't their opinion count? Doesn't the fact that people actively DO NOT WANT TO DIE and prefer to remain alive, even if it means in prison for the rest of their lives mean anything to you? How do you find it so easy to make that assumption? A human life is unquantifiable, it's not societal macromanagment 'oh we're burning too much electricity better flick off a few power users' and death is theory. Nobody knows what death is. How can you theoretically send off people to it so easily? Do not tread so lightly.

[MrColossal]

Helm, obviously anyone would choose death over 25 years in prison that's why Tookie Williams was trying to get his death sentence enacted as quickly as possible.

[ManicMatt]

Oh yeah, OBVIOUSLY. 

[Darth Mandarb]

You know what?  I've had a change of heart!

I'm gonna dedicate myself to saving Tookie's life.

What?

Oh shit ...

[pcj]

Doesn't the fact that people actively DO NOT WANT TO DIE and prefer to remain alive, even if it means in prison for the rest of their lives mean anything to you?

I assume their victims also DID NOT WANT TO DIE.  But they didn't have that choice, did they?

[Helm]

Yeah, his victims' desire for life didn't stop him from killing them, because he was a murderer. Their deaths were anything but justified. And now you're telling me that the state can operate like a murderer as well, just as long as it's dealing with a murderer? If you're unjust and take a life, then it's open season for you and you relinquish all human rights? Off with your head?

[pcj]

What the state does isn't murder, it's justice.  Once the criminal has been properly tried, they can be executed.

[Helm]

You have a knack for wording your opinions into seeming facts, but still, you're presenting no viable argument on WHY it's just to take someone's life. You just repeat your point without fleshing out the concepts that -I hope- are at it's foundation. I'm not expecting proof or anything, since this an ethical manner. I'm expecting to see how you arrive from your axiomatic ethics to the conclusion that the state has the right to take human lives. Explain what those axioms are for me. Explain what the value of human life amounts to, in your system of belief, explain what the social contract you're participating in with your state is. Stop giving me the headlines, I've heard them all before.

[pcj]

The government is established by the people for their mutual protection.  It has laws that its citizens are to abide by.  If those laws are broken, there are consequences.  One of those consequences is capital punishment.  This was reached by the consent of the people and until that consent is removed, it is law.  Therefore, it is lawful to execute criminals.  The suspects are tried through an involved trial process; they have the right to appeal and have the case reviewed and this is done automatically, since it is a capital punishment.

It is no light matter to execute someone, but as the state is a representation of the people, and the murderer took it upon him or herself to kill someone, the state as an embodiment of the people should protect itself in any way it can.

In the same light, war is justifiable.  And what does that involve except a state taking lives and breaking things?

[Helm]

I am not arguing whether it is lawful to execute people in the USA where you live. Is anyone doing this in this thread? I am arguing on the moral implications of capital punishment, the assumptions it makes about state authority, the value of human life, utilitarianism, and effectively whether it SHOULD be lawful to execute people. You see, this is called a theoretical discussion on a subject. Not a factual examination, because the facts are easy to esthablish: the US endorses capital punishment. It has arrived to this practice through sound, lawful means, therefore it's endorsement is also lawful at this time. There. Fact. Truth. We're not talking about that. We're presenting ethical viewpoints one step back from the facts. Explaining what we feel life is and how it should be treated. And ultimately, examining state - citizen relations in the context of crime, rehabilitation, punishment, death.


I am asking you to present to me, the clear foundations of your personal ethics. The axioms on which your further argumenting SHOULD rest. If such exist, please post them so I know where you're coming from. I am not interested in convincing you of anything, I just want to understand where you're coming from. I did as much, I placed the value of human life outside the scale of other human commodities and suggested that the value of human life is therefore unquantifiable and under no circumstances should the state call for taking it away and consider this action ethically fortified. My ethical axioms are as ungrounded as anyone elses. There's no subjective morality. So, where are you coming from? What's your founding ethical beliefs? Can you help me understand without resorting to equalizing RIGHT with LAWFUL for once?

[pcj]

Every person has the natural right to life.  Anyone who purposely and unjustly takes that right from another revokes their own.

[ManicMatt]

"axioms" Now there's a word I've never heard anyone say before.

[Helm]

Every person has the natural right to life.  Anyone who purposely and unjustly takes that right from another revokes their own.

Great! That's a step. So you're saying that when you purposely (intent) and unjustly (without accepted * by whom? * moral foundation) takes a life, you forfeit all societal protection and human rights?

Questions about that. What is the nature of intent? Does free will come into play? Can you entertain the notion that someone might not be at all in control when he commits a violent crime? Are there extenuating circumstances? Do they come into play in your supposition? Do you mean that when someone is found to have commited a crime after cold calculation and when he was of complete control of his actions, only then the first part of your supposition has been met? What happens to not-so-black-and-white situations?

Also, about justice and acting on just cause. Where do you draw the line? If I kill someone when the overwhelming majority considers it the right thing to do, is that then just? Does majority rule in your justice? Or is the law more abstract, and only when the law says I can kill then I can kill? And then, doesn't the majority shape the law through various measures? Is there a higher order than law tha dictates justice to look to? Or is there some other individual justice, sense of morality that could justify the killing of another?

So, now, tell me a few things about society. What's the point of laws in a society? Is protection the biggest imperative? If so, does communal protection ever override or overvalue personal protection? Communal good versus personal good?

Is it to society's benefit that the person who kills is killed? Does society specifically benefit any less if the person who kills is removed from society without losing his life? Why is that step necessary? Is it for the vindication of the victim's family, or for some other reason? What about punishment and vindication, where do you stand on those?

ManicMatt: I suggest you stay away from this thread

[Traveler]

I believe, that it should be possible legally in a country to execute particularly bad criminals. It should not be easy to make such a decision, but it should be an option. I agree with everyone that execution is not a good sentence, but I think it's necessary - not for deterring criminals, but for punishing them.

As I see it, most of the argument on this thread comes from everyone trying to find a general answer to the question of the death penalty while I believe there is no such answer (a good example is Helm's question whether it benefits society to execute criminals.)

I think it's necessary to make a decision on each such case individually. On a purely moral ground it's easy to say that the death penalty is wrong and many of the arguments for this stance have valid points. But if you look at individual cases, it may be quite easy to counter those pooints - not in every case, but definitely some cases. From what I know about S.W., it was a clear-cut decision. In other cases, it may be different.

I don't agree with those who say that there shouldn't be a death penalty, simply because there are criminals who I don't think can rejoin society after any amount of jailtime. As I said previously, a 4-times mass-murderer already makes the list in my book, so I don't really see any room for argument there (no matter how many times he says he's sorry - he had a chance each time to not to do it before pulling the trigger.)

When talking about a murderer who committed a single murder, I'd be willing to look at a bunch of factors to see if there is a way of saving that person. If so, I'd say, put him in a jail - I don't think anyone in non-criminal society will trust him anymore, but he may have a chance of redeeming himself. However, even in such a case, I'd keep the door open to death penalty, for cases where the murder appears particularly cold. If you ask me what's cold: everything that makes me (or the jury and the judge) feel like it. After all, law is (largely) a written framework of what society thinks is acceptable.