Do you believe in Capital Punishment?

[Posh Ram]

I never said I would take pleasure in executing the killer. I said I would prefer to kill the killer myself. You can prefer to do something yourself without taking pleasure in it. I prefer to take the bins out myself but I don't enjoy it.

There are really two different arguments that are getting confused on here. The first is whether killers should be killed. That question has already been answered by Kant and John Stuart Mill, two of the cleverest people who have ever lived, and they both said yes. There is nobody on here a fraction as clever as those two so you can forget about your own moral arguments carrying much weight.

The other question is about the possibility of innocent people being killed under a capital punishment system. That's more to do with politics and policing than with moral philosophy and it has no bearing on whether we should kill someone who we are certain is a killer.

How can you ever be certain? Well, the same question could prevent us punishing anyone. How do we know for certain anyone is guilty of anything?

I actually once did an Internet IQ test and apparently have an IQ of 140, so I'm probably a fraction as clever as Kant and Mill. And just because somebody's clever, doesn't mean that they're right. I think most of us would agree that Hitler was a good politician, but that doesn't mean that his policies weren't fascist, racist and barbaric.

[Cisse]

I don't care if the capital punishment lowers crime rates or not. If an innocent man dies because of the death penalty that is sad but if some murderer escapes or goes free otherwise which happens here a lot and then kills someone I see it as much worse. For me death penalty is safer for innocent people.

I wish I could make sure that nobody kills again after being caught once.

[Normanton End]

Why would you prefer you did it?

Nice use of fallacy. Sadly though "appeal to authority" doesn't really say much.

For those that don't know by the way, Immanuel Kant was an 18th century Prussian philosopher, whilst John Stuart Mill was a 19th century British Philosopher. Kant's philosophies are central to modern philosophy, whilst John Stuart Mill was an advocate of Liberty of the person coming above state control. In terms of crime and punishment, the modern world is quite a different one from the one they lived in, and though their thoughts on the matter were something discussed at the time, the modern world, and the hard facts of our time speak the opposite.

Whilst you're attempting to bring them into it though, could you rationalise your argument from their philosophies, rather than just stating "they thought this". They would have likely been disgusted by your chosen method of discussion, as you made no reference to why they thought that way, only stating that they did. You have failed to offer an argument in that regard.

You have also failed to justify the costs of capital punishment.

Not to mention that you entirely missed the point that capital punishment cannot be "undone" if an error was made, when there is at least a chance when someone is given life in prison. Are you genuinely saying that you think that any number of innocent people killed by the state is acceptable?

Edit: Worth pointing out that error rate is important in the philosophy of capital punishment, as it relates to how we determine guilt, and at what point something is truly "beyond doubt". In America for example, the standard of proof is "beyond doubt", yet they still tick along at an estimated 4% wrongful execution rate, this is with the best of lawyers on both sides, appeals courts and so forth.

As I have already pointed out I am talking about the morality of executing known killers. The fact that somebody might be innocent is a red herring. It is a different question.

If you want to say that we can never know for certain then no punishment will ever be fair.

I don't need to present Kant's argument for the death penalty because his argument coincides with everyone's understanding of fairness. Rewards and punishments should be proportional. If someone was punished for doing something good then everyone would know that was unfair. We just know it is wrong. Similarly if someone received a very light punishment for a very bad act then we would feel that was wrong in itself. There are other reasons why is wrong. For example, it might set a bad example to others and it might lead to social instability, but these are incidental arguments. The main thing is that we all seem to know it is wrong in itself. The only punishment that is proportional to the taking of a life is the taking of that person's life. Anything less is unfair and wrong.

In general, Kant thought things were right or wrong in themselves. John Stuart Mill thought things were good or bad if their consequences were good or bad. Mill thought the consequences of letting murderers live would be that there would be far more murders.

[i-Ram]

I would bring it back for certain crimes where it is proven beyond doubt with either footage or DNA evidence.

Those barstewards that hacked Lee Rigby to death should not be allowed to live.

Tell me one good reason for keeping vermin like that alive. 

We pay to feed them, keep them warm, dental treatment and no queues at the doctors or having to ring at 8am for an appointment only to be told to call back tomorrow.

Hang the bast ards.

I have some empathy with the first few sentences Ossie, but on balance, particularly with those who consider themselves religious martyrs, I wouldn't let them go quick to their "God". Stick them in prison without privileges of any kind, other than acceptable food and exercise, and let them tick off every day of their life. When they meet their "God" they can discuss the **** deal they entered into.

[Normanton End]

I actually once did an Internet IQ test and apparently have an IQ of 140, so I'm probably a fraction as clever as Kant and Mill. And just because somebody's clever, doesn't mean that they're right. I think most of us would agree that Hitler was a good politician, but that doesn't mean that his policies weren't fascist, racist and barbaric.

Your IQ probably puts you in the top 1% but there is an enormous difference between clever people like you and incredibly gifted people like Kant and Mill. Don't tell me you were studying Ancient Greek aged 3 like Mill. My wife claims she has an IQ as high as yours and she does some very silly things.

You are right. Just because someone is very clever it doesn't make them right about everything. But when you are looking for advice or opinions then you put more worth in those from very clever people.

[Rev]

Bring back the death penalty, and we'll never see people plead guilty again, putting victims family's through a different ordeal all over again, nevermind the additional pressure of jurors to be certain of a verdict.

Just imagine being called up for jury service and finding another humans life rests on your decision.

However, see no problem with equipping all cells of serious, convicted criminals with a roof hook and rope, can't see the point in keeping people like Huntley and Brady alive against their wishes.

[AndyinLiverpool]

As I have already pointed out I am talking about the morality of executing known killers. The fact that somebody might be innocent is a red herring. It is a different question.

If you want to say that we can never know for certain then no punishment will ever be fair.

I don't need to present Kant's argument for the death penalty because his argument coincides with everyone's understanding of fairness. Rewards and punishments should be proportional. If someone was punished for doing something good then everyone would know that was unfair. We just know it is wrong. Similarly if someone received a very light punishment for a very bad act then we would feel that was wrong in itself. There are other reasons why is wrong. For example, it might set a bad example to others and it might lead to social instability, but these are incidental arguments. The main thing is that we all seem to know it is wrong in itself. The only punishment that is proportional to the taking of a life is the taking of that person's life. Anything less is unfair and wrong.

In general, Kant thought things were right or wrong in themselves. John Stuart Mill thought things were good or bad if their consequences were good or bad. Mill thought the consequences of letting murderers live would be that there would be far more murders.

Let me guess: You got an F in philosophy. You certainly don't seem to have read much JS Mill (Wikipedia doesn't count), let alone critiqued any of his work.

 

I wondered why you chose Kant and Mill particularly, so I googled and hey presto, there is a pithy little summary called 'Mill Kant on Capital Punishment'.

 

These are important thinkers that we can learn so much from. But I would advise against taking anything at face value just because they were clever.

 

There are several questions you could ask about Mill's stance - How, for example, does he square capital punishment with his views on harming others? In fact, Mill's views on capital punishment came from a belief that it was more humane to the person convicted rather than from any need for revenge or 'justice' for a life taken. The punishment, according to Mill, should be the least cruel in order to do the job of deterring. Death was, for Mill, less cruel than life imprisonment. (let us not also not forget that Mill was talking about Victorian prisons. We can but speculate what he would make of modern prisons)

[Gap tooth ram]

Strong arguments both for and against. It really all is personal opinion.

Personally I'm in favour. Crimes such as the Rigby one are clear cut for me and there can be no counter argument.

Crimes against the elderly and children are horrendous. Rather than the death penalty, put them a Cat A prison on a normal wing and let it play out.

There will always be mistakes within the justice system, but we have to continue to trust in it and abide by its decisions. As with America's 4%, they mostly get of it right.

[Normanton End]

Let me guess: You got an F in philosophy. You certainly don't seem to have read much JS Mill (Wikipedia doesn't count), let alone critiqued any of his work.

You have no idea about what I have studied. I could mention a couple of famous philosophers I have met but you know so little about the subject that they would mean nothing to you. I could quote long chuncks of Mill long before you were born.

[AndyinLiverpool]

You have no idea about what I have studied. I could mention a couple of famous philosophers I have met but you know so little about the subject that they would mean nothing to you. I could quote long chuncks of Mill long before you were born.

Quoting someone at length is neither here nor there.

 

Your interpretation that he supported capital punishment and was clever, therefore he was right is idiotic. It offers no evidence that you understand the subtleties of the argument in general and Mill's argument especially.

[AmericanRam]

http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002000

Good breakdown of some pro's and con's.Worth a read.

[i-Ram]

Let me guess: You got an F in philosophy. You certainly don't seem to have read much JS Mill (Wikipedia doesn't count), let alone critiqued any of his work.

I wondered why you chose Kant and Mill particularly, so I googled and hey presto, there is a pithy little summary called 'Mill Kant on Capital Punishment'.

These are important thinkers that we can learn so much from. But I would advise against taking anything at face value just because they were clever.

There are several questions you could ask about Mill's stance - How, for example, does he square capital punishment with his views on harming others? In fact, Mill's views on capital punishment came from a belief that it was more humane to the person convicted rather than from any need for revenge or 'justice' for a life taken. The punishment, according to Mill, should be the least cruel in order to do the job of deterring. Death was, for Mill, less cruel than life imprisonment. (let us not also not forget that Mill was talking about Victorian prisons. We can but speculate what he would make of modern prisons)

There may be trouble at Mill but perhaps no need to be a Kant about it.

[Rev]

There may be trouble at Mill but perhaps no need to be a Kant about it.

If I could like this twice, I would.

[i-Ram]

If I could like this twice, I would.

Very kind of you Reveldevil. I got an E in Philosophy. The rest of that lesson was a complete blur. Have a good weekend buddy..

[ladyram]

http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002000

Good breakdown of some pro's and con's.Worth a read.

The paragraphs on retribution v revenge are interesting.

One says the 2 are different and gives definitions, the other says they're one and the same.

So like many of the other pros and cons, it's down to individual interpretation, a gut feeling if you will, on what is right or wrong, which will always divide us and future generations. I don't think it will ever be totally abolished.

[EastKentRam]

Strong arguments both for and against. It really all is personal opinion.

Personally I'm in favour. Crimes such as the Rigby one are clear cut for me and there can be no counter argument.

Crimes against the elderly and children are horrendous. Rather than the death penalty, put them a Cat A prison on a normal wing and let it play out.

There will always be mistakes within the justice system, but we have to continue to trust in it and abide by its decisions. As with America's 4%, they mostly get of it right.

 

Was I the only one that thought 4% was incredibly high?

 

4 in a 100 people wrongly executed, you're really ok with that? 

 

Living in a society where the state has the power to kill it's citizens sounds like hell to me. 

[Gap tooth ram]

Was I the only one that thought 4% was incredibly high?

 

4 in a 100 people wrongly executed, you're really ok with that? 

 

Living in a society where the state has the power to kill it's citizens sounds like hell to me.

I'm not ok with it. Ideally I would like 100%. Where humans are concerned though, there will always be error. If someone I cared about was in the 4% I'd do everything I could to veto it.

The point I make though is simple. 2 men in broad daylight, on CCTV and in front on ten's of witnesses hacked a mans head off. A defender of this country. They lose all human rights and deserve death. The financial arguments in this instance become an irrelevance.

There is nothing anyone can say that will change my mind on this.

For the people that can find forgiveness for this, you are truly remarkable. I for one could not and nor would I want to.

[Rev]

Anyone see that Michael Portillo documentary a few years back on BBC 2?

It concerned the use of nitrogen as a painless alternative to lethal injections, electric chair etc.

When he presented the results of scientific studies showing it was the most humane method of execution to the US authorities, they unanimously rejected it because it didn't cause enough suffering during death!

[needles]

There's a case for having it in extreme case where unequivocal guilt is proven. Maybe once in three years something happens that would warrant it and there could be no argument of any form of miscarriage of justice.

 

Those ***** that murdered Lee Rigby, and so on.

 

Law should have an element of retribution, even vengeance. IMO.

[needles]

Anyone see that Michael Portillo documentary a few years back on BBC 2?

It concerned the use of nitrogen as a painless alternative to lethal injections, electric chair etc.

When he presented the results of scientific studies showing it was the most humane method of execution to the US authorities, they unanimously rejected it because it didn't cause enough suffering during death!

 

Damn good programme that. It's generally abhorrent for the state to kill anyone...but not always. Sometimes society wants revenge and should get it.