There are a lot of reasons for and against the death penalty. I am curious what your strongest arguments are, either for or against.
Mine:
I am against the death penalty.
If we kill a person, they are forever silenced. But let's say the person truly was guilty--and they may have even "deserved" the death penalty: The crime they were convicted of is probably not their only heinous crime. It may be a false hope or a silly belief, but ending their life forever removes the possibility that they will confess to other crimes. This really bothers me because I think about all the people who have disappeared, all the cases which have not been solved.
There have been quite a number of death-row exonerations (over 140 since 1973). This is really troubling on two levels: one, an innocent person had their liberty taken away (and some falsely-convicted people have been murdered by the system that was supposedly getting retribution for a murder..) AND two, the real criminal is still out there--and no one is even looking for them!
So, what are your reasons?
I'm ok with the death penalty for certain crimes, in theory. However, they was we (USA) actually enforce it is flawed to the point that I think it would be best to scrap the whole thing.
Innocent people on death row and actually executed. Racial disparity. Higher cost than life in prison.
I've often heard people say that victims will get more closure if the criminal is executed. I don't think I would. If the guy gets life in prison, that is it; it is over and done. Give him the death penalty and decades and numerous appeals latter before they finally get around to killing him, but not without another media cycle, just like durring his appeals.
I am against it. Partly because getting the right person is too problematic, partly because it takes forever to actually resolve the appeals and fulfill the sentence.
If 24 hours after the murder the murderer was killed and it happened consistently, murder would become a very rare event. Reality bears no resemblance to this however. The way our system works now, life sentences are the way to go.
Quote from: "Dreamer"There are a lot of reasons for and against the death penalty. I am curious what your strongest arguments are, either for or against.
Mine:
I am against the death penalty.
If we kill a person, they are forever silenced. But let's say the person truly was guilty--and they may have even "deserved" the death penalty: The crime they were convicted of is probably not their only heinous crime. It may be a false hope or a silly belief, but ending their life forever removes the possibility that they will confess to other crimes. This really bothers me because I think about all the people who have disappeared, all the cases which have not been solved.
There have been quite a number of death-row exonerations (over 140 since 1973). This is really troubling on two levels: one, an innocent person had their liberty taken away (and some falsely-convicted people have been murdered by the system that was supposedly getting retribution for a murder..) AND two, the real criminal is still out there--and no one is even looking for them!
So, what are your reasons?
Death penalty! So much is said about it, it defies logic. The fact that people institutional kill people is beyond belief. It describes a society.
Now my thoughts.
I am for the death penalty ONLY for acts of treason. The death penalty is not a deturant. It isn't justice. It's revenge pure and simple. Every death certific issued for a person executed states "murdered by the state." That is exactly what happens. The state murders a person. It is a fact that minorities and the poor are disporpotionaly the ones condemned to death and executed. Many people innocent of the crime they are condemned to death for occur. If only one innocent person executed is a strong enough agrument aganst the death penalty. However I reserve the act of treason and only the act of treason for the death penalty.
QuoteI am for the death penalty ONLY for acts of treason.
What makes treason so special, that your entire logical assessment of the death penalty goes out the window for it?
I'm against it because of the hypocritical situation it puts the state in. The state or government says that people have the right to life and then will take that right away when they see fit. If a private citizen takes another person's life away there is a punishment for it. They spend (or should) the rest of their life in prison. Taking their life away isn't justice, it's state sanctioned revenge. The state is saying "we're mad and all we can do is kill you right back".
It's not a deterrent, its not a solution.
Quote from: "Plu"QuoteI am for the death penalty ONLY for acts of treason.
What makes treason so special, that your entire logical assessment of the death penalty goes out the window for it?
Because treason is a special case. It isn't revenge, it's prevention. A person that commits treason that is held in prison is still able to be part of an organization that can work against this nation. The main reason though is that is a constitutional mandate for the act of treason.
That doesn't make any sense... a person who is part of a criminal organisation while in prison is also still able to be part of that organisation and work against the same people he worked against to get him in prison in the first place. There is no reason why only someone commits treason would be able to do so.
And "because it's in the constitution" is an appeal to tradition, which is a logical fallacy. Could be the constitution is just wrong.
Quote from: "Plu"And "because it's in the constitution" is an appeal to tradition, which is a logical fallacy. Could be the constitution is just wrong.
cough*second amendment*cough.
Let's not bring that topic up again, ok?
Quote from: "Plu"Let's not bring that topic up again, ok?
I'm not interested in rehashing it but I consider the context valid.
Quote from: "Eric1958"If 24 hours after the murder the murderer was killed and it happened consistently, murder would become a very rare event.
I disagree. We'd just end up with a string of people getting murdered every 24 hours.
Every murder would spawn another one of these never ending chains until we are left with a major problem.
Who do we get to kill the last murderer?
Quote from: "Jason78"Who do we get to kill the last murderer?
The last person to post in the last person wins thread.
I'm against the death penalty because it is not justice but an injustice to the loved ones of the guilty. It is retribution for what the criminal did that thought he was right doing it too in many cases. The system is so screwed up the out come depends on how good or bad a lawyer and judges are. It is a system that is a abusive based on looks and personalities instead of the facts too many times. Eye witnesses are notorious for getting the facts wrong. I think there should be professional juries that are trained to find the truth of what happened and not just win like lawyers do. And lets not forget how money, politics, religion, bigotry, and prejudices decide the outcome in many cases.
Also, if a jury is squeamish about having someone killed they will let too many of the guilty go to do it again that are up for the death penalty. But there is no doubt that a child rapist and killer, or a rapist, or killer, can never hurt anyone again if they are dead. Too many really hard core criminals get out on bail or time served that do it again. The most insane of these is a multiple rapist of children that cut a girls arms off was let go again. The legal system should be to protect society not punish, and set up to make it work, not to make money for anyone, that can be outrageous at times. Just my opinion. But if a criminal harmed one of my family all bets are off---OJ would have had his skin pealed off and left to rot. :shock: :evil: Solitary
Look at the Texas application of the death penalty and see the flaws therein. They have put innocent people to death. The death penalty should only be applied when there is absolute certainty of the crime- which there often isn't- and of such a heinous nature that there is more justification to destroy the perpetrator than to keep him alive.
Richard Allen Davis' murder of Polly Klaas comes to mind. This man was a career criminal who committed a crime so heinous that he is not only sitting on death row in California, but should have been executed by now.
I would say as above; death penalty only in rare exceptions and only in particularly heinous crimes.
Quote from: "Plu"That doesn't make any sense... a person who is part of a criminal organisation while in prison is also still able to be part of that organisation and work against the same people he worked against to get him in prison in the first place. There is no reason why only someone commits treason would be able to do so.
And "because it's in the constitution" is an appeal to tradition, which is a logical fallacy. Could be the constitution is just wrong.
Article III
Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.Every opinion from the onset of this nation has ruled that this is instruction for capital punishment under the law for acts of treason.
Death penalty isn't going away because the issue is debated over emotions not cold hard facts.
'Oh, what IF someone breaks in and murders your kids in front of you?'
Fact is the odds are against it and something else..
State sanctioned murder ought to be an option to anyone sentenced to life in prison. If you're facing life in prison or have the option of a quick painless death which are you going to pick?
Quote from: "surly74"Taking their life away isn't justice, it's state sanctioned revenge. The state is saying "we're mad and all we can do is kill you right back".
This ^ I think it explains a lot.
I used to be for the death penalty, when there was massive evidence against the accused, and the crime was particularly heinous. And treason is a particularly heinous crime, as the traitor could cause the deaths of thousands. Or even worse, embarrass a politician. :oops: But, I saw one too many cases of prosecutorial misconduct, to continue to justify my old view on the death penalty.
One famous case of prosecutorial misconduct was the Dreyfus affair in France. //http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_affair It involved treason, political agendas, and bias against Jews. I don't see any reason whatsoever that it couldn't happen here. It might not necessarily be a Jew to take the fall, but there are plenty of other minorities for us to pick on.
The judiciary branches of our government do not give us justice. They are not after the truth or justice. They give us jurisprudence. So you have one guy getting out of jail for murder after seven years, while a guy said to have been carrying an ounce of crack cocaine gets a mandatory twenty-five years. Which is easier to frame someone for? Murder or possession?
Anyway, I consider the prevalence of prosecutorial misconduct to be the main reason I am against the death penalty.
Quote from: "mykcob4"Quote from: "Plu"That doesn't make any sense... a person who is part of a criminal organisation while in prison is also still able to be part of that organisation and work against the same people he worked against to get him in prison in the first place. There is no reason why only someone commits treason would be able to do so.
And "because it's in the constitution" is an appeal to tradition, which is a logical fallacy. Could be the constitution is just wrong.
Article III
Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
Every opinion from the onset of this nation has ruled that this is instruction for capital punishment under the law for acts of treason.
It's still an appeal to tradition. It could've been every opinion since the dawn of time and it'd still be a logical fallacy to claim it as an argument.
Quote from: "mykcob4"Quote from: "Plu"That doesn't make any sense... a person who is part of a criminal organisation while in prison is also still able to be part of that organisation and work against the same people he worked against to get him in prison in the first place. There is no reason why only someone commits treason would be able to do so.
And "because it's in the constitution" is an appeal to tradition, which is a logical fallacy. Could be the constitution is just wrong.
Article III
Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
Every opinion from the onset of this nation has ruled that this is instruction for capital punishment under the law for acts of treason.
The US Supreme Court would disagree. They ruled that the death penalty, except in cases of murder, was cruel and unusual punishment.
Quote from: "Dreamer"Quote from: "mykcob4"Quote from: "Plu"That doesn't make any sense... a person who is part of a criminal organisation while in prison is also still able to be part of that organisation and work against the same people he worked against to get him in prison in the first place. There is no reason why only someone commits treason would be able to do so.
And "because it's in the constitution" is an appeal to tradition, which is a logical fallacy. Could be the constitution is just wrong.
Article III
Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
Every opinion from the onset of this nation has ruled that this is instruction for capital punishment under the law for acts of treason.
The US Supreme Court would disagree. They ruled that the death penalty, except in cases of murder, was cruel and unusual punishment.
You will find that they ruling has the exception for treason. Treason is a capital offense under constitutional law.
Quote from: "mykcob4"Every death certific issued for a person executed states "murdered by the state."
Nonsense. The death certificate - in most jurisdictions - lists the
medical cause of death. While the coroner may rule a death homicide, suicide, accident, etc, the actual CoD would be heart failure, lethal injection, or whatever the proximal cause was. No one ever died of "homicide", they die of exsanguination, gunshot wound, etc.
I was only involved in filling out one death certificate when I worked at a hospital, but the cause of death was listed as "failure of the medulla oblongata." Then some stuff about it failing because of organ failure due to cancer. I asked the doctor about it and he said "failure of the medulla oblongata" is always the reason for death, it is how death is now defined.
So, I got to agree with Colanth on the cause of death thing. I realize filling out one death certificate doesn't make me an expert on them, but than has anyone here filled out more than me?
Quote from: "mykcob4"Quote from: "Plu"QuoteI am for the death penalty ONLY for acts of treason.
What makes treason so special, that your entire logical assessment of the death penalty goes out the window for it?
Because treason is a special case. It isn't revenge, it's prevention. A person that commits treason that is held in prison is still able to be part of an organization that can work against this nation. The main reason though is that is a constitutional mandate for the act of treason.
So whats to stop a government deciding any perceived slander against it is treason (which we have done in the past) and begins to threaten executing anyone who does so?
Heck, what is to stop a government from saying, "You revealed crimes we committed, therefor you are a traitor." and executing people who reveal it's own crimes?
Sorry, for crimes that deserve the death penalty, treason is near the bottom. And the Constitution is flawed in multiple places, hence the reasons it has been amended quite a bit. Personally an old piece of paper isn't justification enough for me to think people should be put to death.
Also...
Quote...or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
...is something that politicians have accused journalists who interview members of Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, and I would assume could be applicable to an American journalist who goes to Cuba or Iran to get their side of the issue as well.
Sorry, that is just too slippery of slope to be worth it.
Quote from: "Dreamer"The US Supreme Court would disagree. They ruled that the death penalty, except in cases of murder, was cruel and unusual punishment.
Quote from: "mykcob4"You will find that they ruling has the exception for treason. Treason is a capital offense under constitutional law.
I found no such thing at all. However, the Patriot Act and associated legislation has made it so that someone who *may* be guilty of treason is rather unlikely to have a proper trial at all. And so there is little chance that they would be sentenced to the death penalty under circumstances which would then allow for a filing with the Supreme Court.
BUT--Let's assume that a person was convicted of treason, and they were sentenced to death. And then that case was heard by the US Supreme Court. Case law (Coker v. Georgia) would be that the death penalty without first-degree murder violates the Constitution's eighth amendment protections--that the death sentence should only be applied for murderers. Of course, case law doesn't automatically decide it--earlier case law (Fuhrman v. Georgia) ended capital punishment for a few years, while Gregg v. Georgia started it again. Gregg v. Georgia set specific guidelines for capital punishment cases--that it is for first-degree murderers, that the trial occurs in two stages (guilt or innocence and then a trial about aggravating and mitigating circumstances). There have been other cases, but I have not found an opinion specifically addressing treason. So it is difficult to say if they would uphold the death penalty for treason--and they certainly would not preclude it to apply ONLY to treason.
Slander isn't treason. I posted the constitutional statement about treason. The US once had a sedition law which was ruled unconstitutional and well defined as NOT treason. It isn't a slippery slope at all. There are years of case law that has well defined treason and the difference between that and sedition.
Quote from: "Colanth"Quote from: "mykcob4"Every death certific issued for a person executed states "murdered by the state."
Nonsense. The death certificate - in most jurisdictions - lists the medical cause of death. While the coroner may rule a death homicide, suicide, accident, etc, the actual CoD would be heart failure, lethal injection, or whatever the proximal cause was. No one ever died of "homicide", they die of exsanguination, gunshot wound, etc.
Sorry but Texas the place where most executions are carried out, and California list executions as Homicide by the State.http://rationalist.org.uk/578 (http://rationalist.org.uk/578)
There is legislation in both states to change it but as of right now that is the case.
Quote from: "mykcob4"Slander isn't treason. I posted the constitutional statement about treason. The US once had a sedition law which was ruled unconstitutional and well defined as NOT treason. It isn't a slippery slope at all. There are years of case law that has well defined treason and the difference between that and sedition.
Assuming the Supreme Court will uphold the law... the same Supreme Court that argues that corporations are humans.
Quote from: "Plu"It's still an appeal to tradition. It could've been every opinion since the dawn of time and it'd still be a logical fallacy to claim it as an argument.
So we'll just leave it off at you admitting it's an appeal to tradition and nothing more then? Or do you still want to give a non-fallacious argument to keep treason as the only exception to an otherwise rational position?
I am opposed to the death penalty because I believe fundamentally that it is wrong to take the life of another human being who does not give consent to do so. Even if the person in question has committed that very act.
No more, no less. Revenge is not the answer to anything and killing people for their crimes serves no purpose.
I see a lot of comments about the death penalty being bad because it's considered "revenge". My question would be is revenge immoral?
Revenge is petty. "You hurt me, so now I will hurt you."
It never actually solves anything, it just causes more and more violence because people will continue to avenge people avenging themselves because someone avenged someone for doing something wrong, which in itself was probably also an act of (perceived) revenge.
However, that doesn't mean that all applications of punishment can be considered 'revenge'. It's just that the ones that can only be considered revenge need to stop, because they accomplish nothing.
Quote from: "Satt"I see a lot of comments about the death penalty being bad because it's considered "revenge". My question would be is revenge immoral?
at the state level it is. The state says that it's illegal and wrong to take the life of another person yet they will do it when they see fit.
mykcob4 wrote:
QuoteSorry but Texas the place where most executions are carried out, and California list executions as Homicide by the State.http://rationalist.org.uk/578 (http://rationalist.org.uk/578)
There is legislation in both states to change it but as of right now that is the case.
Still got to go with Colanth on this. Though mykcob4 did get his information honestly, I doubt the validity of it. One it is from a left-wing UK source. Think Fox News for the left. Two, it says "Manny Babbitt's death certificate gave his cause of death as "Homicide". Above that someone had scribbled "justifiable"." In the state of Nebraska, it is illegal to be scribbling things on a death certificate. I rather doubt the state of California allows the unauthorized modification of death certificates either. This makes the source suspect in my opinion.
As far as the death penalty being for revenge, I actually agree that revenge is a legitimate reason for it. In nature tit-for-tat is the rule, which makes gregarious animals able to get along. It is the Christian idea of turning the other cheek which is in conflict with natural ideals. While I agree, revenge does get out of line, consider the US invasion of Afghanistan, generally it is necessary to make a society work.
Consider, if a auto repair place rips you off, you then tell all your friends not to go there. They screwed you, so you try your best to screw them. Most of us will do so within the confines of the law. Some won't, and that is when revenge getting out of hand comes in.
I'm still against the death penalty though. Just because of prosecutorial misconduct.
You seem to confuse revenge with prevention of repeat. If I tell my friends not to go to the carshop because they ripped me off, I'm not trying to hurt the car-shop, I'm trying to protect my friends from being ripped off as well.
If I wanted to take revenge on the carshop, I'd start a slander campaign against them.
There's a big difference.
I am against the death penalty for all the reasons people have already given in this thread, and more. There are so many reasons to be against the death penalty, it would take a while to list them all. One I did not see mentioned was study. Serial killers and other violent offenders need to be studied (and I don't mean cut up or harmed), I mean, interviewed by psychologists, blood test, brain scans, and other non cruel types of study. These things are why we have more understanding now than we did 50 years ago about violent offenders, and more study is always important, to continue to develop better ways of profiling, prevention, and rehabilitation (if possible). But really, the fact that state sanctioned murder is obviously morally wrong should be enough of an argument, all by itself.
I've heard people give reasons who support the death penalty. I have never heard a good reason, though.
Quote from: "Satt"I see a lot of comments about the death penalty being bad because it's considered "revenge". My question would be is revenge immoral?
I don't know if it's immoral, but it's not that sweet and not that satisfying. Maybe it is to someone else, but if the person who is executed isn't guilty, it's a grave injustice just to satisfy someone's baser desire, and if I were the final authority I would not permit an execution of a possibly innocent person. In my opinion anyway, it doesn't justify feeding someone's need for revenge when there is the slightest risk of that happening.
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"mykcob4 wrote:QuoteSorry but Texas the place where most executions are carried out, and California list executions as Homicide by the State.http://rationalist.org.uk/578 (http://rationalist.org.uk/578)
There is legislation in both states to change it but as of right now that is the case.
Still got to go with Colanth on this. Though mykcob4 did get his information honestly, I doubt the validity of it. One it is from a left-wing UK source. Think Fox News for the left. Two, it says "Manny Babbitt's death certificate gave his cause of death as "Homicide". Above that someone had scribbled "justifiable"." In the state of Nebraska, it is illegal to be scribbling things on a death certificate. I rather doubt the state of California allows the unauthorized modification of death certificates either. This makes the source suspect in my opinion.
As far as the death penalty being for revenge, I actually agree that revenge is a legitimate reason for it. In nature tit-for-tat is the rule, which makes gregarious animals able to get along. It is the Christian idea of turning the other cheek which is in conflict with natural ideals. While I agree, revenge does get out of line, consider the US invasion of Afghanistan, generally it is necessary to make a society work.
Consider, if a auto repair place rips you off, you then tell all your friends not to go there. They screwed you, so you try your best to screw them. Most of us will do so within the confines of the law. Some won't, and that is when revenge getting out of hand comes in.
I'm still against the death penalty though. Just because of prosecutorial misconduct.
Is Amnesty International a left organization? The fact is which ever source actually ferrets out the info isn't important since the fact is that the source didn't make up the information....they acquired it. Texas and California list executions as State Homocide or Murdered by the State. They arn't the only states that have that denotation about a state execution. Granted all of those states are in the process of changing that distinction, but it is just spin. It's still government murder, and revenge. It isn't punishment or justice.
mykcob4, I am not saying the states don't list it as "State Homocide or Murdered by State," I'm saying I find it unlikely to be on the actual death certificate that way. For the reasons I pointed out before.
Plu wrote in part:
QuoteYou seem to confuse revenge with prevention of repeat. If I tell my friends not to go to the carshop because they ripped me off, I'm not trying to hurt the car-shop, I'm trying to protect my friends from being ripped off as well.
I see the distinction as only being the motivation. Plu, since your a nice guy, you are trying to help your friends first. Whereas me, being a misanthropist, want to hurt the car shop more than helping my friends. A slander campaign would technically be illegal. Though telling the truth isn't illegal. Yeah, yeah, they would have to prove malice aforethought for it to actually be illegal, but I am talking about the original intended law.
On one hand I believe that there are crimes which should merit the death penalty. On the other hand, our justice systems commit way too many fuck-ups for this to be a real option IMO...
QuoteI see the distinction as only being the motivation.
It can be, but sometimes there is no motivation other than a desire to hurt, in which case I feel that it's a bad thing to go through with it as it will not solve anything at that point.
The difference is that if your motivation is preventing someone from doing wrong again, you can stop when you're reasonably sure that it won't happen again. When you're just trying to hurt the other side, you have no reason to stop other than having sated your own desire to inflict pain on others, and you can only hope that it comes before the point where you're hurting the other far more than they've hurt you, and are causing them in turn to desire to inflict pain back on you.
The proper motivation will prevent you from overdoing your revenge, because the motivation to harm isn't involved.
So Plu, with my car shop analogy, would it be okay to cause them to lose some business, but wrong if I caused them to go out of business?
If that is what you are saying, then I agree. When a chimpanzee gets groomed but won't return the favor, the other chimpanzee will not groom that chimpanzee again. The non-grooming chimpanzee is not physically hurt or ostracized. Though, if he does it enough times he may be ostracized and maybe even hurt. Still, in their minds, they are return tit-for-tat. Because that is justice to them. Other animals as well have be observed doing something like this.
In regards to the death penalty, death is not an unnecessarily harsh punishment for murder with forethought. If tit-for-tat rules are applied. But, the courts don't recognize tit-for-tat rules. Society as a whole does, except where brainwashed to believe otherwise. Maybe brainwashed is too harsh a term, but I can't think of another word, so I'll let it stand. The legislative branches of our government don't really understand tit-for-tat either. Which is why a murderer gets less time in prison than a drug mule.
Anyway, does that clear up my idea any?
QuoteSo Plu, with my car shop analogy, would it be okay to cause them to lose some business, but wrong if I caused them to go out of business?
It's irrelevant what the outcome to the business is, it's purely the motivation that makes the act moral or immoral. If you're doing something to protect others from being ripped off, that's good. If you're doing something to hurt a specific company, that's bad.
If you run them into the ground protecting people from their swindling, that's a good cause of action. If you cause them to lose one customer because you were trying to make them lose business, that's a bad cause of action.
Imagine this hypothetical. The company ripped you off. You start telling people that they rip people off. The company, realising what they've done to you and feeling guilty, start a campaign to state they've bettered their ways, and then show people that they have. Final result: the car shop has more customers, but they no longer rip people off.
Looking at the new situation, this is a clear improvement. A swindling car shop is gone, and an honest car shop has taken its place, and customers are happy.
If your motivation was to protect people from being ripped off, this situation will make you happy and all is good.
If your motivation was to hurt the car shop, this situation (which, from an objective viewpoint, is clearly a much better situation that the previous one) will make you angry, because your attempts to hurt the car shop have caused them to earn more customers. So now, if you're still after revenge, you will be trying to hurt even harder
a perfectly honest company.
All because you were seeking to inflict pain on someone rather than trying to prevent it to others. Your petty desire to hurt those that hurt you are now causing you to become the same problem to society that the car shop was before they mended their ways.
Quote from: "Plu"QuoteSo Plu, with my car shop analogy, would it be okay to cause them to lose some business, but wrong if I caused them to go out of business?
It's irrelevant what the outcome to the business is, it's purely the motivation that makes the act moral or immoral. If you're doing something to protect others from being ripped off, that's good. If you're doing something to hurt a specific company, that's bad.
If you run them into the ground protecting people from their swindling, that's a good cause of action. If you cause them to lose one customer because you were trying to make them lose business, that's a bad cause of action.
Imagine this hypothetical. The company ripped you off. You start telling people that they rip people off. The company, realising what they've done to you and feeling guilty, start a campaign to state they've bettered their ways, and then show people that they have. Final result: the car shop has more customers, but they no longer rip people off.
Looking at the new situation, this is a clear improvement. A swindling car shop is gone, and an honest car shop has taken its place, and customers are happy.
If your motivation was to protect people from being ripped off, this situation will make you happy and all is good.
If your motivation was to hurt the car shop, this situation (which, from an objective viewpoint, is clearly a much better situation that the previous one) will make you angry, because your attempts to hurt the car shop have caused them to earn more customers. So now, if you're still after revenge, you will be trying to hurt even harder a perfectly honest company.
All because you were seeking to inflict pain on someone rather than trying to prevent it to others. Your petty desire to hurt those that hurt you are now causing you to become the same problem to society that the car shop was before they mended their ways.
"it's purely the motivation that makes the act moral or immoral." I have to agree with you there. Revenge is not a good reason for the death penalty. Prevention is a good reason and that is not the case. The death penalty hasn't reduced the crimes that is soppose to target. What it has done is target the poor and minorities disporportionately.
I don't like analogies as a rule and I have to say that even though I respect Likelytobreaks attempt to shine a different light on the discussion, their analogy isn't relevant.
And yes I realize that my close adherence to the constitution is undoubtably a contridiction to my view of the death penalty on the whole, I still stand by my conviction to obey the constitution.
Plu wrote in part:
QuoteAll because you were seeking to inflict pain on someone rather than trying to prevent it to others. Your petty desire to hurt those that hurt you are now causing you to become the same problem to society that the car shop was before they mended their ways.
Okay, I think I see where you are coming from. I'm looking at more from a societal motivation rather than an individual motivation.
Back to our chimps. Grooming chimp doesn't get groomed by ungrooming chimp, so he decides to beat the crap of ungrooming chimp. The chimp community steps in and stops grooming chimp from further hurting ungrooming chimp. But, some of the chimps who have groomed ungrooming chimp and don't like him, think those stopping grooming chimp from beating the crap out of ungrooming chimp are wrong. So, now the chimps have a civil war because grooming chimp got carried away.
Yeah, I can see that. But, motivation is a hard thing to measure. Sure we can try to analyze what and how people are talking, but people can be tricky. So, we have to fall back on what will work for society. Which in a just society, would be tit-for-tat. Not to get revenge on those misbehaving, but to alleviate actions detrimental to society. So, if the death penalty keeps people from committing murder or treason, then it is justified. If it doesn't, then it is not justified.
Therefore, because the courts and the laws do not hand out justice, we can't allow the death penalty. Which is kind of what I was getting at with prosecutorial misconduct. I think Plu is just looking deeper into it than that. Is that correct?
Quote from: "Satt"I see a lot of comments about the death penalty being bad because it's considered "revenge". My question would be is revenge immoral?
In this case, yes, it is immoral by my own standards.
Quote from: "surly74"Quote from: "Satt"I see a lot of comments about the death penalty being bad because it's considered "revenge". My question would be is revenge immoral?
at the state level it is. The state says that it's illegal and wrong to take the life of another person yet they will do it when they see fit.
This fundamental hypocrisy is another reason I do not support capital punishment.