Capital Punishment

[marthanoob]

The 8th amendment only protects from cruel and unusual punishment.

As you can see, some, if not all, forms of capital punishment can be accepted.
Most methods of capital punishment are designed so that the victim will essentially feel no or very little pain, or at least become unconsious before experiencing anything.

"Cruel and Unusual" would be more like a brazen bull, or cutting someone's extremities off and eating them before burning them alive.

"Cruel" and "unusual" are entirely subjective so it completely conforms to whatever the society thinks is cruel and unusual. Technically torture is finite and death is absolute so it depends on perspective. I would consider making an absolute judgement cruel and unusual.

Probably true. But who cares? That doesn't satisfy the question.

I wasn't really addressing the question. I was pointing out a practical argument against it.

This seems like a strong answer, but I think it was implied the accused is in fact a murderer.

Only in theory.

Umm, who cares?

Proponents who argue that way. I wasn't actually addressing any one person.

No. The current government body are the grandchildren of the founding fathers. The founding fathers gave today's government the right to do mostly whatever they'd like, certainly including capital punishment.

With a bit of tape, which didn't work as well as I would have hoped.

Also, I think the idea of "cruel and unusual punishment" is actually a "finite torment", ( the finitity is the extent to which it effects one's being). I don't think it encompasses here, actually.

The Supreme Court seems ready to apply it. See above.

those numbers dont look like whats being claimed at all... more executions pairs with fewer murders. of course, you gave raw numbers instead of percentage rates, so your numbers are entirely irrelevant anyway. maybe the rates are in the study, but i dont really have time to read it at work - you should post the relevant numbers in the thread next time.

I quoted exactly what was there. The study didn't mention any percentages, and you're right, that is probably what matters.

 

[blazedaces]

Anyone, especially Sudsy, from now on, if you're going to claim a certain action is ethically right or wrong, you must provide evidence in the form of basis from widely accepted ethical theories (ethics and morals are not the same thing, look them up!). Enough of this nonsense. All of you are "claiming" certain actions are "right" and "wrong" without even giving reasons as to why and why not.

I'm going to use a simple cost vs. benefit analysis (source) to answer the OP's question (a major part of ethical theory, and so is impact on society sudsy!):

In its current state it costs more to put a criminal to death than it does to keep them in jail for life, therefore remove the death penalty.

On the other hand, as some have posited in this thread, if we fix the system so that this is not the case, then keep the death penalty.

But just so you are all aware, the death penalty's major costs are due to court costs (the hiring of lawyers, judges, etc. for so many dates because usually its prolonged over and over). These costs end up being way, way over the amount of keeping them in a jail cell, feed and supervised for the extra time they stay alive (which is not much longer because of how long it takes for them to actually be put to death once they are sentenced). This of course is due to "red tape" and to be honest, I don't think it's changing any time soon.

-blazed

 

[Sudsy86_]

Anyone, especially Sudsy, from now on, if you're going to claim a certain action is ethically right or wrong, you must provide evidence in the form of basis from widely accepted ethical theories (ethics and morals are not the same thing, look them up!). Enough of this nonsense. All of you are "claiming" certain actions are "right" and "wrong" without even giving reasons as to why and why not.

You clearly either aren't reading my posts or need to further develop your critical thinking.

My argument does not require any evidence beyond : there is a lack of sufficient reason to believe otherwise.

A non-assertion does not require direct evidence on its part; the lack of evidence for its opposition is the evidence itself--an indirect support.

To reassert my argument, I am saying that, one, the question is questioning the ethical/ moral quality of the action given a hypothetical circumstance, and that, two, there is no valid argument justifying capital punishment on the basis implied by the question. The only other alternative is my stance.

Again, society is not an inherently sufficient compensation for an individual on an ethical scale, regardless of what the individual has done. Society's stability and well-being is not a valid basis for help determining the ethical quality of any action affecting an individual's ability to exist. Regardless of what permission the government might have, the permission itself they possess might not necessarily be a justified act on the giver's behalf. Therefore, if they have the word of a deceased person( from beforehand) to have their right to kill their murderer, that itself is not enough.

I agree that a murderer should be killed--but the question needed to be answered is by whom. Only the one who has been killed might have that right, if even anyone at all.
A murderer does not deserve to live. But at the same time there is nothing validating the government's assertion that they have the right to decide who can exist in something that goes beyond their "power", the world. If someone could only be dead in an area controlled by the punishing government while still living elsewhere, capital punishment might, then, be justified. However, a government's law only encompasses that which they assert power over. And, quite frankly, last time I checked no single government body governs the world.
How is it fair to the murderer, even though he is a murderer, to not be able to exist outside the area the asserting government's power because their life happens to encompass everything and that was taken away from them despite the government's limited power?

And no, their previous actions of murder don't make it fair: you're still not justifying the government's assertion of power.

That needs to be addressed.

Again, my assertion is realistically a non-assertion, so it does not need evidence " for" it.

 

[snex]

you are absolutely not making a non-assertion. your position is not in any sense a null hypothesis. there is no such thing as a null hypothesis in debates about ethics.

all you are doing is shouting about justification when you have no idea what the word even means. based on your posts, THERE IS NO POSSIBLE justification to EVER DO ANYTHING!

 

[blazedaces]

Again, society is not an inherently sufficient compensation for an individual on an ethical scale, regardless of what the individual has done. Society's stability and well-being is not a valid basis for help determining the ethical quality of any action affecting an individual's ability to exist. Regardless of what permission the government might have, the permission itself they possess might not necessarily be a justified act on the giver's behalf. Therefore, if they have the word of a deceased person( from beforehand) to have their right to kill their murderer, that itself is not enough.

I agree that a murderer should be killed--but the question needed to be answered is by whom. Only the one who has been killed might have that right, if even anyone at all.
A murderer does not deserve to live. But at the same time there is nothing validating the government's assertion that they have the right to decide who can exist in something that goes beyond their "power", the world. If someone could only be dead in an area controlled by the punishing government while still living elsewhere, capital punishment might, then, be justified. However, a government's law only encompasses that which they assert power over. And, quite frankly, last time I checked no single government body governs the world.
How is it fair to the murderer, even though he is a murderer, to not be able to exist outside the area the asserting government's power because their life happens to encompass everything and that was taken away from them despite the government's limited power?

Prove it. You're not a reliable source sudsy. Just because you claim this is how ethics works doesn't make it so. You've just made it up in your head. The fact that you think impact on society has nothing to do with ethics is enough to show you don't understand proper ethical theory and need to look some up.

You also completely ignored the evidence I provided (the argument based on an actual, widely accepted ethical theory, cost vs. benefit analysis).

You can't win a debate in the debate hall by shouting louder sudsy. Saying it over and over again won't make it true.

-blazed

 

[Sudsy86_]

you are absolutely not making a non-assertion. your position is not in any sense a null hypothesis. there is no such thing as a null hypothesis in debates about ethics.

all you are doing is shouting about justification when you have no idea what the word even means. based on your posts, THERE IS NO POSSIBLE justification to EVER DO ANYTHING!

How is " There is a lack of evidence for X, and since there is only one alternative, I must adopt that as my belief" an assertion? It's a passiveness-based belief.

I am "shouting" about justification, and you guys aren't satisfying ethical requirements for it. Based on my posts, you could legitimately conclude that I have very strict, precise standards for true rationalization, but I'm not a solipsist, if that was what you're meaning to say.

If an action affects x's existence, regardless of x's actions, I don't see how that isn't more of a realistic effect than something like...imprisonment--something whose justification is EXCLUSIVELY based off intuition and inference.

 

[Sudsy86_]

Prove it.

Prove what? Most of the things I'm asseting as true/ not-true are things which are requirements for your argument to be valid.

So, essentially, I'm not the source of the initial assertion.

You're not a reliable source sudsy. Just because you claim this is how ethics works doesn't make it so. You've just made it up in your head. The fact that you think impact on society has nothing to do with ethics is enough to show you don't understand proper ethical theory and need to look some up.

I'm not a source of anything but personal inference. However, if you studied or pondered ethical matters, the first thing that would be prevelant in your mind is what questions ethics ask.

And, quite frankly, the question asked by the OP was a question that is asked in ethics.

Must I provide a definition?

You also completely ignored the evidence I provided (the argument based on an actual, widely accepted ethical theory, cost vs. benefit analysis).

No, I just didn't write a response directly to it. I believe my thoughts on it are that it still doesn't satisfy the meaning of the question. I'll elaborate tonight, though.

You can't win a debate in the debate hall by shouting louder sudsy. Saying it over and over again won't make it true.

That was never the case. I'm sorry you don't grasp strictly logical self-evident propositions.

Anyways, I ahve to go to work.

 

[snex]

How is " There is a lack of evidence for X, and since there is only one alternative, I must adopt that as my belief" an assertion? It's a passiveness-based belief.

there is not "only one alternative." your position is no more the default than anything else is. there is no such thing as a default ethical position.

I am "shouting" about justification, and you guys aren't satisfying ethical requirements for it. Based on my posts, you could legitimately conclude that I have very strict, precise standards for true rationalization, but I'm not a solipsist, if that was what you're meaning to say.

as has been pointed out, you dont even know what the requirements are. you just like to pretend that you do. i could sit here and claim that you arent ethically justified to post on smashboards, and you would be hard-pressed to prove me wrong if any standard you present i just reject out of hand as "not justified."

 

[blazedaces]

I am "shouting" about justification, and you guys aren't satisfying ethical requirements for it. Based on my posts, you could legitimately conclude that I have very strict, precise standards for true rationalization, but I'm not a solipsist, if that was what you're meaning to say.

Sudsy, I'll say it again, your standards are not THE standards and are not acceptable. No one here cares if, by your standards, pedophilia, murder, stoning, racism, and more are "ethically" acceptable. They aren't by accepted ethical theory. You've also never once claimed what your standards are, but we don't care if you provide them or not. They are simply not acceptable. Period.

Prove what? Most of the things I'm asseting as true/ not-true are things which are requirements for your argument to be valid.

So, essentially, I'm not the source of the initial assertion.

Go through what I quoted again line by line. They are all assertions based on your ethical standards. I don't care what your standards are if they do not fit within the acceptable set of ethical theories. You need to prove they do in order to make a standpoint in this ethical debate.

Look, I don't know what people were arguing earlier, but I don't care. Your statements are invalid since they are not based on evidence.

I'm not a source of anything but personal inference. However, if you studied or pondered ethical matters, the first thing that would be prevelant in your mind is what questions ethics ask.

And, quite frankly, the question asked by the OP was a question that is asked in ethics.

Must I provide a definition?

No... look up an intro to ethical theory (answers that question). What do you think ethical theory is? A theory... about ethics? What should it cover, well firstly, defining ethics, then an answer to what kinds of questions should be directed towards ethics, etc.

Like I said, stop trying to establish your ethical theory, because we don't care. There are widely accepted ethical theories used by ethical societies today (AMA, National Bar, IEEE, etc.). If you are going to make a case for a point ethically then you must provide evidence in the form of support from one of these accepted ethical theories.

Sudsy, let me explain something simple to you. Other people are not in your head. You never explained a criteria for justification, you just assumed we all just miraculously "knew" what is and isn't justified. You just kept shouting "this isn't justified, bla bla", but you never said why. Every time someone argued back saying it's justified because "bla bla" you just said no, that doesn't make it justified.

No one's in your head and no one even cares what's going on in there. You're not a reliable source on the matter. No one cares what you believe is and isn't justified.

Stop using made up excuses. Either provide evidence for your stance or recant it.

-blazed

 

[Sudsy86_]

Your position ASSERTS : the government is ethically justified in their actions ( acting upon capital punishment)

The logical requirements--not MY PERSONAL STANDARDS--are for you to justify the necessity for government's existence ( which I accept for sake of further argument), justify what extent to which a government SHOULD be able to assert power, and justify the actions themselves.

How are these not self-evident requirements to the position? Please explain to me other means of truly ethically justifying the position.

Ethics: the philosophical study of moral values and rules.
Ethics is a major branch of philosophy, encompasses right conduct and good life. It is significantly broader than the common conception of analyzing right and wrong. ...

Now, the arguments about how it protects society and its stability are arguably valid, but you're still left having to satisfy how the government is fair/ right/ ethical in what they assert they encompass and the individual governmental actions themselves.

Again, those are things required to satisfy the ethical questioning of the government's role and actions in this.

How these are the requirements:

"Capital punishment is an inherently justified act".

Capital punishment is an enactment by government bodies; therefore the government necessarily exists in our hypothetical scenario. The questioning of the act's justification is presumably of its logical/ realistically justified ( though not necessarily exclusive to the pragmatic) state. Ethics questions whether something is inherently right or wrong. The questioning if something is logical/ realistically justified cannot be ultimately different from ethical questioning. Therefore, the questioning of the act's justification is therefore ethical.

Capital punishment denotes a government's existence, a government asserting its power can/ should encompass the dictation over one's ability to live, and government deciding they will act.

Justifying this require you: justify the government's existence ( its inherent necessity), justify the assertion that they can and should be able to dictate whether or not one lives or not, and justifying the act itself.

First of all, you haven't explained why we need government in particular over anything else.; secondly, you haven't explained how the given assertion of power's length is better than any other extent. However, I will accept your justification of the removal of a murderer.

Your answer, to me, is practically wise and meets ethical requirements.

However, you have yet to demonstrate how the first two assertions are justified.

Because those are requirements, and because you haven't met the requirements fully, you have not fully justified the assertion. And because to assert/ act definitively fully rationally requires you to meet all self-evident requirements, regardless of proportional importance, any act/ assertion not meeting all standards is not an inherently rational act. For something to be ultimately right/ best, it must be fully comparitively rational within the circumstances. Because of this, your assertion is not right because it is not fully rational.

Therefore, your assertion on this matter is not justified.

 

[blazedaces]

Your position ASSERTS : the government is ethically justified in their actions ( acting upon capital punishment)

Show me where I made such an assertion, because I never did. I even said in my last post, I don't care what other people were talking about. Here was the first paragraph of my first post:

Anyone, especially Sudsy, from now on, if you're going to claim a certain action is ethically right or wrong, you must provide evidence in the form of basis from widely accepted ethical theories (ethics and morals are not the same thing, look them up!). Enough of this nonsense. All of you are "claiming" certain actions are "right" and "wrong" without even giving reasons as to why and why not.

I'm not picking a side. I'm calling everyone out on their bull ****, even you, and that's what I'm still doing.

The logical requirements--not MY PERSONAL STANDARDS--are for you to justify the necessity for government's existence ( which I accept for sake of further argument), justify what extent to which a government SHOULD be able to assert power, and justify the actions themselves.

How are these not self-evident requirements to the position? Please explain to me other means of truly ethically justifying the position.

You're correct, but to justify ethically means just that. To do so you must provide evidence in the form of acceptable ethical standards. Your assertion is that the government is NOT justified ethically. You're making an ethical assertion. You need to come to this conclusion somehow through evidence the same way the opposition would. As snex pointed out, this is not a default position. There is no default position in ethics short of "I don't know".

Ethics: the philosophical study of moral values and rules.
Ethics is a major branch of philosophy, encompasses right conduct and good life. It is significantly broader than the common conception of analyzing right and wrong. ...

Now, the arguments about how it protects society and its stability are arguably valid, but you're still left having to satisfy how the government is fair/ right/ ethical in what they assert they encompass and the individual governmental actions themselves.

Again, those are things required to satisfy the ethical questioning of the government's role and actions in this.

So wait, this whole time you're trying to tackle an issue that is separate from the one we're debating? You're not talking about whether or not it is ethically justified to have the death penalty, but whether or not it's ethically justified for a government to commit to acts that support their goals? Why are we talking about this? Start a new topic if you want to discuss this idea. It has almost no relevance to the current debate. You may think it does, but it doesn't. We assume for the sake of argument that if we find the death penalty to be the right thing to do, the government will do it. Otherwise, we assume they won't. We're not questioning the government's ability to carry out the act and we don't care really in this topic.

How these are the requirements:

"Capital punishment is an inherently justified act".

Capital punishment is an enactment by government bodies; therefore the government necessarily exists in our hypothetical scenario. The questioning of the act's justification is presumably of its logical/ realistically justified ( though not necessarily exclusive to the pragmatic) state. Ethics questions whether something is inherently right or wrong. The questioning if something is logical/ realistically justified cannot be ultimately different from ethical questioning. Therefore, the questioning of the act's justification is therefore ethical.

Capital punishment denotes a government's existence, a government asserting its power can/ should encompass the dictation over one's ability to live, and government deciding they will act.

See above. Then start a new debate about whether governments have the right to enforce laws that have influence over their people's lives. This is a stupid idea. One only needs to look at the goals and definitions of a government to see this is going to go nowhere.

Justifying this require you: justify the government's existence ( its inherent necessity), justify the assertion that they can and should be able to dictate whether or not one lives or not, and justifying the act itself.

First of all, you haven't explained why we need government in particular over anything else.; secondly, you haven't explained how the given assertion of power's length is better than any other extent. However, I will accept your justification of the removal of a murderer.

So you agree that capital punishment is ethically justified? Ok, we're done here. Government need not be discussed at all.

Your answer, to me, is practically wise and meets ethical requirements.

However, you have yet to demonstrate how the first two assertions are justified.

Because those are requirements, and because you haven't met the requirements fully, you have not fully justified the assertion. And because to assert/ act definitively fully rationally requires you to meet all self-evident requirements, regardless of proportional importance, any act/ assertion not meeting all standards is not an inherently rational act. For something to be ultimately right/ best, it must be fully comparitively rational within the circumstances. Because of this, your assertion is not right because it is not fully rational.

Therefore, your assertion on this matter is not justified.

Look, I realize that in some twisted, in my opinion faulty, way you intended on doing to others what we're doing to you, calling you out on your irrationality.

It's good that finally you're defining what you want, but if you had done this earlier, I'm just pointing out, maybe people would have responded to you in a way you were hoping for...

-blazed

 

[M@v]

My 2 cents on this.

As said, we are one of the few countries that still executes people.
China, a communist country, is the other prominent one. In addition, it can sometimes cost MORE money to execute a prisoner than send him to jail. Also, our execution system is flawed IMO. Prisoners can sit on death row for years before execution, and some even die there.
I think the death penalty is a cheap way out for the inmate, since they are not sitting in a cell for their whole lives suffering for the horrible act they did. Lastly, and most importantly, what if there was a mistake? You can't bring a dead person back unless you Jesus. If someone was wrongly accused for Life in Prison, at least you can free him and give him another chance.