Heartland

nodubmanshouts:

Personally, I'm all for the death penalty in principle, but the execution of innocents worries me too much...

How can you show that it is wrong to kill people by killing people?

elamanamou wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 355029.stm

No messing in Iran.Proven guilty=Death penalty.

We're just too soft.Common sense tells us that if a person is a 'softie' we just get trodden on all over.

two words: "human" and "rights"

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=human%20rights

human rights
pl.n.
The basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law

see also http://hrw.org/doc/?t=mideast&c=iran

jeez, i cant believe that "educated" & free-thinking people can actually sit down and ponder about this stuff and STILL come to the conclusion that its a good idea. how does that happen?

canon docre wrote:How can you show that it is wrong to kill people by killing people?

exactly.

Human rights - not something which a lot of criminals show a high regard for.

With rights come responsibilities. Disregard your responsibilities and you forfeit your rights. It's not hard.

Besides, my point is not that capital punishment is right. My point is that it has majority support. The fact that you blame the likes of the Sun and the Mail - two of our biggest selling papers - merely underlines that point. It's not like the tough stance is losing readers or supporters, is it?

This is not a knee-jerk reaction, it has been consistent for almost as long as we have been without a death penalty in the UK.

So, in a democracy, should the public not have what they want?

Maybe educated and free-thinking people are exercising their right to freedom of thought and expression. I read somewhere that was often held as a basic human right, but I forget where

i was responding more to vanessa's posts (and in response to her attitude to the subject) than anything you have said previously...

and i never said people aren't "allowed" to come to their own conclusions, just that i utterly fail to comprehend how that particular conclusion comes about.

i just dont follow the logic, or the emotion, or the anything that could possibly lead one human being to believe it makes sense to kill another human being to teach society that human life is valuable and that taking life is wrong.

madness.

So if we just put the Middle East to one side and look at say....the good old US of A, who also have the death penalty.

Exactly how much 'no crime' because of the threat of the needle, do they actually have?

And as for letting the 'people' get what they want. They want Gareth Gates, Jade blummin Goody and other naff 'vote 'em off' kinda programmes. It doesn't bode well for anything of any wieght like crime does it?

Because it's not about demonstrating that killing is wrong per se - I'd argue that is generally accepted.

It's about ensuring that the punishment for killers - and the deterrent against other potential killers - is as great as it possibly can be. This may not be sensible, but it does have an underlying logic.

But a death sentence is a great deterrent to would-be murderers. Look at the states that have capital punishment in the USA; no murders there.

*Edit* Point already made while I was typing that. Still.

andymackem wrote:Because it's not about demonstrating that killing is wrong per se - I'd argue that is generally accepted.

It's about ensuring that the punishment for killers - and the deterrent against other potential killers - is as great as it possibly can be. This may not be sensible, but it does have an underlying logic.

And the ruddy great warnings on the back (and front) of cigarette packets? It's not a deterrent that's needed, it's a change in mindset. I have no solutions or answers as to how you can go about that.

I choose NOT to kill people or 'fiddle' with kids. It wasn't the death penalty that made me choose not to do so.

So when 'the people' march in their millions against the war in Iraq the government is right to ignore 'the people' then as well?

You can't have it all ways. Either we are a participatory democracy (good thing) where the public's views and wishes are heard and acted upon (good thing), or we are not.

You can't simply endorse the will of the masses when it suits you then insist that they are wrong when they don't. That way lies despotism.

but do the peoples of the middle east have a democracy? are their voices heard by their goverments?

and do they, the people, want this marvellous death penalty that seems to be responsible for ensuring that women can walk those streets safe at night?

So by the logic of several of the last posts, we might as well not punish any crimes, because the jails are so full, obviously punishment is not a deterent at all?

The two countries with the highest murder rates per capita (Colombia, South Africa) do not have the death penalty.

To compare the USA with the UK doesn't work either because there are overiding social, economic and educational issues which differ drastically between the two cultures. (Not to mention gun control). Also, in the US hardly anyone on death row actually gets executed...

And the UK does still have the death penalty, but nobody is ever convicted of the crimes associated with it ... mmmm...

nodubmanshouts wrote:To compare the USA with the UK doesn't work either because there are overiding social, economic and educational issues which differ drastically between the two cultures. (Not to mention gun control). Also, in the US hardly anyone on death row actually gets executed...

Unless they're black...

nodubmanshouts wrote:And the UK does still have the death penalty, but nobody is ever convicted of the crimes associated with it ... mmmm...

Not true. Common misconception about the "treason and arson in a naval dockyard" thing or whatever.

Quiff Boy wrote:but do the peoples of the middle east have a democracy? are their voices heard by their goverments?

Only in those countries where we went to fight a war that you vigorously oppose

Quiff Boy wrote:and do they, the people, want this marvellous death penalty that seems to be responsible for ensuring that women can walk those streets safe at night?

No idea. I was referring solely to British public opinion, which might usefully influence our democratic process.

I wouldn't care to speak for the people of other countries.

On a philosophical note, we know that no judicial system can be flawless and a percentage of convictions will be unsafe. But we also recognise that the rule of law is essential to promote a functional society, even allowing for those flaws.

If a return to the death penalty, with a small number of wrongful executions, significantly enhanced the quality of life for the majority (due to less crime, less fear of crime etc), would the greater good justify the inevitable loss of life?

andymackem wrote:If a return to the death penalty, with a small number of wrongful executions, significantly enhanced the quality of life for the majority (due to less crime, less fear of crime etc), would the greater good justify the inevitable loss of life?

Is that not begging the question? It's a pretty big "if".
I'll try to break it down to a series of syllogisms.

P1: a return to the death penalty, would lead to less crime, less fear of crime etc
P2: less crime, less fear of crime etc would significantly enhance the quality of life for the majority.
C1: a return to the death penalty would significantly enhance the quality of life for the majority.
P3: a significant enhancement to the quality of life for the majority is a good thing
C2: a return to the death penalty would be a good thing
P4: a return to the death penalty, would lead to some innocent people being executed
P5: innocent people being executed is a bad thing
C3: a return to the death penalty would be a bad thing

C1 follows if you grant P1 and P2. (leaving aside for now that a valid syllogism can be made with invalid premises...)
P2 and P3 are pretty hard to argue with
So C2 is a valid conclusion.

However, P4 + P5 --> C3 is also a valid conclusion.
-------
Having said that, I'm not sure that P1 can be demonstrated.

In fact, OK, arguing from the particular to the general is inductive not deductive logic, but there is an evidential case (from capital-punishment states in the US) that P1 is false.

Thanks for explaining my question. I did understand it before I asked, but I'm glad you do as well.

The use of the word 'if' at the start suggests that, for the purpose of discussion, I'm accepting your P1 to be fact.

Under those circumstances, would you say P3 > P5? Yes or no?

syllogisms

best word this year, have a star

However, P4 + P5 --> C3

where does PO come into this, or are we being serious again

Also, you've pushed two seperate items together in your P1. Although re-introducing the death penalty might make no measurable impact on crime levels, it could still persuade people that the streets were safer.

Therefore it could still reduce fear of crime, irrespective of its effect on actual crimes.

Since levels of violent crime are in fact very low, the reduction in fear of crime is arguably a greater boost to quality of life than reducing a very low-level risk. Therefore, the reassurance of 'something being done' could be justification on its own, even if that something was largely ineffective.

But now your heads are really spinning

andymackem wrote:Thanks for explaining my question. I did understand it before I asked, but I'm glad you do as well.

I was trying to make the thing clearer for myself. And to point out that your "question" actually contained a number of suppositions and hidden sub-questions. Typical journo's trick

andymackem wrote:The use of the word 'if' at the start suggests that, for the purpose of discussion, I'm accepting your P1 to be fact.

Under those circumstances, would you say P3 > P5? Yes or no?

No. I don't think you can justify killing someone in order to improve the quality of someone else's life.

If the good of P3 outweighs the bad of P5, would that lead to the conclusion that randomly executing innocent people would increase the quality of life for the majority?

i would think P1 wouldn't actually happen for fear of P5, besides isn't most violent crime in the family and spur of the moment

markfiend wrote:

andymackem wrote:Thanks for explaining my question. I did understand it before I asked, but I'm glad you do as well.

I was trying to make the thing clearer for myself. And to point out that your "question" actually contained a number of suppositions and hidden sub-questions. Typical journo's trick

What's hidden about a question beginning 'if'? It was clearly an attempt to test a hypothesis.

markfiend wrote:

andymackem wrote:The use of the word 'if' at the start suggests that, for the purpose of discussion, I'm accepting your P1 to be fact.

Under those circumstances, would you say P3 > P5? Yes or no?

No. I don't think you can justify killing someone in order to improve the quality of someone else's life.

If the good of P3 outweighs the bad of P5, would that lead to the conclusion that randomly executing innocent people would increase the quality of life for the majority?

No. The key word is 'randomly'. Judicial execution isn't random. It may be flawed, but it isn't random. Ever thought of becoming a journalist

And the purpose of judicial execution - however flawed - is to punish the perpetrator. The related putative increase in fear of committing crime and similarly putative decrease in fear of being a victim of crime are beneficial side-effects for society as a whole.

It depends on whether you feel the judicial system should be about punishment, deterrent or rehabilitation. But whichever combination you fancy we know that some people will not be deterred and some people do not seem to be rehabilitated. Neither subset renders the aims of deterrent or rehabilitation invalid.

You've missed out something on the purposes of capital punishment. In the eyes of the great unwashed, it's about revenge.

andymackem wrote:And the purpose of judicial execution - however flawed - is to punish the perpetrator.

and i think that's where we fundamentally disagree.

i just dont believe in "an eye for an eye".

andymackem wrote:It depends on whether you feel the judicial system should be about punishment, deterrent or rehabilitation. But whichever combination you fancy we know that some people will not be deterred and some people do not seem to be rehabilitated. Neither subset renders the aims of deterrent or rehabilitation invalid.

quite. but to me "judicial execution" seems a tad extreme when we're looking for a "happy medium".

andymackem wrote:What's hidden about a question beginning 'if'? It was clearly an attempt to test a hypothesis.

Hehe fair enough.

andymackem wrote:No. The key word is 'randomly'. Judicial execution isn't random. It may be flawed, but it isn't random. Ever thought of becoming a journalist

But if we're talking about the innocent victims of miscarriages of justice, then they're not going to be killed by any clear cause-and-effect chain like perpetrator-of-crime -> police-detection -> trial -> conviction -> victim-of-execution are they? There's no clear link between our hypothetical innocent person and any crime; as good a definition of "random" as any

How would you react if you had two young children and a paedo lived next door to you?

It happens

What would your views be?

Markfiend for starters!