|
Post by bernard on May 6, 2018 12:01:40 GMT -6
Was talking to a friend the other day about death and we stumbled upon a strange argument in favor of the death penalty. What we were originally talking about was whether death is something to rationally fear. By "death" we meant the absolute end of existence. So if you go to an afterlife, that's not real death in the sense we had in mind, because you continue to exist. So put the afterlife to one side. Is real death, the absolute cessation of existence, something to rationally fear? Some people over the centuries have said no (most notably Epicurus). Though we all fear death, they have argued that that might not be rational. Arguments include "if there is nothing after death, there is a fortiori nothing to fear"...... "You effectively die every night, in the deep sleep between dreams in which you experience nothing"...... "The fear of death is just an evolutionarily adaptive phobia. We fear it only because we are descended from those who feared it."...... "The time after you exist is no worse than the time before you were born, therefore nothing to fear"...... "Your non-existence, by definition, is not something that will happen to you."...... "Whenever you pay attention, you'll find that you exist."...... "Death is the absence of all sensation. And what we do not sense is nothing to us."...... etc. Then my friend was like, "if death is no big deal, then murder is not such a grave crime after all." And I was like, "As a judge I would accept that defense and then order the defendant hanged! He really couldn't complain." But that leads to an argument for the DP. If death is something bad, then the death penalty matches the crime. And if death is not so bad, then the death penalty matches the crime. And if it's anywhere in-between, then the punishment matches the crime. Kinda like this:
| DP for murder | Death is bad. | Matches Crime | Death is not so bad. | Matches Crime
|
But the same can't be said for any other punishment (e.g. LWOP). Whether the penalty matches the crime really depends.
|
| LWOP is bad. | LWOP is not so bad. | Death is bad. |
| Matches Crime. | Mismatches Crime. | Death is not so bad. |
| Mismatches Crime. | Matches Crime. |
So the argument is that we should prefer a punishment that we know matches the crime over one that we don't. I know not everybody likes this kind of argument, but I thought it might be worth sharing.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on May 6, 2018 12:40:00 GMT -6
The problem is not so much is death bad but rather is making someone else dead before they "want" to be dead bad.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on May 6, 2018 14:50:03 GMT -6
It is not death we fear, it is the pain getting there, the pain leaving your child before grown, etc etc. How many of us say when death comes we hope to go in our sleep. We fear the unknown.
I say it is best to leave the afterlife out of it, we have enough people who commit suicide. We have some who think they will have 20 virgins waiting for them, while they took so many innocent with them.
Lets just stick with the sentence should match the crime, & murder is the taking everything we have, nothing left.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2018 9:26:04 GMT -6
Sentences often do not match the crime. We don't rape rapists for example. We don't steal the cars of those who steal cars....
So, I don't think we're trying to have the sentence fit the crime. Also, bear in mind, that it's not the victim vs the perp. It's the state against the perp.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on May 8, 2018 11:52:17 GMT -6
Sentences often do not match the crime. We don't rape rapists for example. We don't steal the cars of those who steal cars.... True. Indeed it's a point I've often made. It's interesting, though, that if we did bruise bruisers, the punishment would fit the crime. If bruising someone is awful, bruising the bruiser as punishment is correspondingly awful. If bruising someone is bad, but not that bad, then it's not that bad to be sentenced to a bruising for it. If bruising someone barely deserves to be punished, being sentenced to a bruising barely counts as punishment. My point is that "an eye for an eye" leaves relatively little room for a mistake in proportionality. The same can't be said for prison sentences, which can be hopelessly out of whack with the crime, if indeed the "crime" deserves to be punished at all. People always focus on the supposedly vengeful features of the "eye for an eye" philosophy, concentrating on crimes where, if the state reciprocated in kind, the state would appear quite monstrous. They usually ignore the natural eighth amendment style restrictions "eye for an eye" places on harsh sentencing. For example, nothing stops a society that follows a pure system of prisons and fines from imprisoning homosexuals. Such travesties have been common throughout western so-called liberal societies. But what would have happened under the "eye for an eye" law? Er... nothing. Homosexuality between consenting adults has no victim, so there's no plausible reciprocal punishment. Similarly, a pure system of prisons and fines permits people to be imprisoned or fined for free speech. In the US, we have had to add constitutional protections to patch up this fault in the system. But in other western nations, where constitutional protections do not apply, this kind of thing goes on. E.g. in Germany they just imprisoned some woman for denying that the holocaust occurred. In recent weeks a guy in Scotland was fined 800 pounds for telling an offensive joke. What would happen under an "eye for an eye" system? At worst, the thought-criminal would be forced to hark some opinions and jokes they find offensive. I don't pretend that "eye for an eye" is a perfect system. But I think it has virtues that are frequently overlooked.
|
|
|
Post by supermax on May 20, 2018 12:01:41 GMT -6
Not so unusual.
Confused.com is truer
What is the purpose of any society having a "code" to deal with crime ? Each state/unit/country gets to choose their own code - thats your actual democratic government in action - dont want the death penalty - get enough people to vote against it - want it to stay on the statutes - get enough people to vote with it ! (for actual reference refer to Brexit)
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on May 20, 2018 14:24:52 GMT -6
"if death is no big deal, then murder is not such a grave crime after all." Your friend's argument is flawed, of course, because murder and death are not quite the same thing. In fact, death is not a thing, while the act of murdering someone is----not to mention the fact that murder is also a form of theft. Regarding death as a punishment; it's not really a punishment because it is not something that the condemned or anyone else will ever experience. Hence, what you experience during the course of your existence is all you will ever know.
|
|
|
Post by dudleysharp on Sept 3, 2019 11:17:24 GMT -6
Reality.
About 99% of all capital, death penalty eligible murderers prefer life over death.
99% find execution a more feared punishment than life.
Most, already, know what imprisonment is like.
In addition, as life is preferred over death and death is feared more than life, we know that what is preferred more, deters less and what is feared more, deters more.
|
|