Killing a human being is unethical in most senses. That much is clear.

The death penalty in particular is flawed in a way since the system is not 100% accurate. Not all people on death row are undisputedly guilty. There are a few occurrences where people that have been on death row have been exonerated as they did not actually commit the crime. So the death penalty is an extremely precarious punishment to enact.

But in cases such as child rape, conclusive proof is usually evident and explicable. Why then should a conclusive crime not be punished? The Supreme Court majority supposes that it is the reasoning of "evolving standards of decency." To me this breaks both fundamental approaches to the law.

Fundamentally, one can be either a naturalist or a positivist. To be a legal naturalist, one sides with emotion and extra-codified reasons to sway the holdings of the law. To be a positivist on the other hand, the law is the law, and to break it in any sense is a crime. But it is also the case that as a positivist, emotions cannot factor into the judgment, only the law in itself.

The judgment may seem confusing? and its supposed to be. The majority's judgment is an attempt to stay in the grey area just a bit longer. That is the "Hart" of Penumbral theory so to speak. It is legal maneuvering, pure and simple. This is definitely not a final say in the matter, even though it is a decision of the Supreme court. Some retroactive contradiction always surfaces later.

My feeling about capital punishment has little to do with the ethics of the punishment itself, but rather the system used to determine who dies.

There probably are people out there who are so cruel, so vicious, that they deserve to die. Let's take an easy example like Heinrich Himmler -- he deserved to die as much as anyone who has ever lived.

But the problem is we have no standard to determine who deserves to die and who doesn't, and we have no system to accurately determine who fits the loose standards we have. And until we can be 100% confident that we will never execute an innocent person, and that capital sentences have nothing to do with race, then capital punishment has no place here.

Great topic.

As some of you may have seen in the news, the US Supreme Court is now facing an interesting situation involving rape and the death penalty. Some more food for thought, a real life instance of having to address some concerns already mentioned.

High court split over execution of child rapists - CNN.com

I don't know why it seems that justice is there to serve out punishments equal to crimes committed to teach a lesson; that doesn't solve anything, and, perhaps removes a few criminals from the system, but in truth a criminal by choice is a criminal; already aware of the rules he is not going to change when confronted with the expected repercussions. Ideally if some one wished to break the rules of their state then they must leave, that's about all I can imagine, what would be the point in anything else than just removing the rule-breaker? Revenge I assume.

Dan.

'Justice' = 'revenge/retribution' in Amerikkka (and perhaps in some other cultures as well). We are more interested in 'revenge' than 'compassionate healing'. If we spent the same money that we spend on 'revenge', on 'healing', perhaps we could find a 'behavioral cure', or more, for the 'socially misbehaved'.
'Compassion' is not a high priority amongst the population 'here'..

Aedes,

I couldn't agree with you more. How can we decide who dies within a system that is not full proof to begin with, nor accountable for relative standards.

Nameless,

The problem is that we always think of how things could be better after a different system, no matter how miniscule a flaw in that system may be which is already in place. Forethought we have but never foresight. You already admit that perhaps in other countries a retributivist system is in place. There are some countries where that kind of "justice" is taken to horrifying heights. "Amerikkka" is the lesser of a multitude of evils when it comes to jurisprudence. I don't remember the last time a court sentence a woman to be stoned to death because she "tempted" a man to rape her.

But sometimes "healing" is painful as compared to "retribution." America is more utilitarian than retributivist. Healing is a relative factor when it comes to the law. But also, don't mistake justice for the law. They are two completely different things.

I don't feel like expounding except to say that normally, unless justice requires it, it is not ethical to kill ones own people, but that no one else can; so that when Orestes killed his Mother, it was required for the family honor to do so, just as when his mother killed his father, it was essentially vengeance for the death of a child that was not in his clan, but was in hers. Honor was the goal in each case, and in the end, honor was restored, and though we do not consider it in such fashion exactly today, honor is an essential facet of all human relationships. And the honor of one group demands the honor of the other. Even today our word rehabilitate has the connotation of restored to honor. Perhaps you can hear the word Able, in rehabilitate. So, if I may stretch the definition some, what is honorable is also ethical, and when we are about forming nation states out of different sorts of people, it is by way of saying that we are all now one family, and that one does not kill ones own unless under warrant of law, and when this is done, we should all be more united for having loaded a scapegoat with the sins of the community, and slaughtered him for sport. As you may know, the low comedy of a police drama is the high tragedy of humanity if seen from the perspective of the haunted individual.

But justice is a form of ethics. What is justified is always relative... so is honor.

As you are well aware, the essence of tragedy is the scream of an inconspicuous yet agitated goat.

Let me do you one better: Injustice is always justified. And since honor demands a victim, and in effect, any victim will do, it is inevitable that vengeance will go further than justice demands, but the honor will be no greater than a draw.

How about Texas murdering the 'retarded'? Isn't that disgusting enough for you? How about the executed being posthumously vindicated by new evidence? DNA? Too common... A murder/killing/execution just isn't something that you can 'take back with an apology when you find that you were mistaken!
You are making excuses for a corruption by saying that there are others, perhaps, more corrupt. There are quite a handful of other countries that are less so, also, with higher standards of living, where their prison industry is not a major industry dependent on an ever growing population of inmates, with anywhere near as many of the population in prison (per capita).
You go and make your excuses, yah, Amerikka, love it or CHANGE it!


Depends whether you're getting raped and shanked in prison or buying some lettuce at the market... Yes, 'healing' is often painful. So?
And 'retribution' is supposed to be painful, no?


Thats apples and oranges. Thats like saying that Amerikkka is more female than egocentric. Makes no sense.
If you find retribution to be 'utilitarian', I'd say that you were not thinking clearly, and are probably part of the 'problem' rather than the solution. We are built all over the (JudeoXtian) notion of 'judgement and punishment'. How medieval! Where does compassion figure into your scenario? Do you pick and choose who is worthy of your 'comapassion'? If anyone?


They are inextricably intertwined. Judgement and punishment. The law defines that against which we are judged and provides the 'appropriate' retribution. That is what is known as the criminal JUSTICE industry. You make a poorly behaved individual into a 'criminal', a 'them', so we can distance ourselves mentally and emotionally, and proceed to punish/torture/kill them. Like in war.
Denial ain't just a river...!

Nameless, please take a breath and tone it down here.

Abalard said that Ius (justice) is the genus, and Lex (law) is a species of it.
The practical meaning of this is that if a law is not justice, it is only coercion.

nameless,

"How about Texas murdering the 'retarded'? Isn't that disgusting enough for you? How about the executed being posthumously vindicated by new evidence? DNA? Too common... A murder/killing/execution just isn't something that you can 'take back with an apology when you find that you were mistaken!
You are making excuses for a corruption by saying that there are others, perhaps, more corrupt. There are quite a handful of other countries that are less so, also, with higher standards of living, where their prison industry is not a major industry dependent on an ever growing population of inmates, with anywhere near as many of the population in prison (per capita).
You go and make your excuses, yah, Amerikka, love it or CHANGE it!" (nameless)

Please don't take "Texas murdering the retarded" is the layman sense "just because they are retarded." The "retarded" anti-death penalty advocates are referring to are actually referred to in the legal realm as "criminally insane." You are referencing irrational far left propaganda.

On the executed being vindicated after they are dead, that is a fundamental problem with the system, which I agree with. That was one of my first points.

But I don't make excuses for corruption by saying other are more so. The world is not perfect. But there are far worse "judicial" systems than the American one.

There is a difference between an excuse and a justification. I always tend towards the latter. But it is important to understand the nature , function, and history of "Amerikka" before we create morals to make up for our own inadequacies.


"That's apples and oranges. That's like saying that Amerikkka is more female than egocentric. Makes no sense.
If you find retribution to be 'utilitarian', I'd say that you were not thinking clearly, and are probably part of the 'problem' rather than the solution. We are built all over the (JudeoXtian) notion of 'judgment and punishment'. How medieval! Where does compassion figure into your scenario? Do you pick and choose who is worthy of your 'compassion'? If anyone?" (nameless)

It makes perfect sense. It's just an abstract concept. If you reread the statement again, you'll find that "America is more utilitarian than retributivist" Misinterpretation is a great part of "the problem." But I have to disagree with you over the idea that we are built over the judeo-Christian notion of judgment and punishment. We carry on a legal tradition that comes from a vast array of cultures and histories. The American legal system has more in common with ancient roman law? and even Greek law than it does from judeo-Christian law. How pre-medieval! Compassion figures into the utilitarian concept of the good of the community over the good of the one. Do "we" pick and choose who is worthy of compassion? Yes. I'm not an idealist, I work with the system I have. The law is not perfect. Sometimes there are consequences to a utilitarian decision. There are many people and professions that require that type of decision making beyond the law.


"They are inextricably intertwined. Judgment and punishment. The law defines that against which we are judged and provides the 'appropriate' retribution. That is what is known as the criminal JUSTICE industry. You make a poorly behaved individual into a 'criminal', a 'them', so we can distance ourselves mentally and emotionally, and proceed to punish/torture/kill them. Like in war.
Denial ain't just a river...!" (nameless)

Are they? But you make another mistake. Judgment and punishment do not equate to justice and the law. That's only your particular opinion. So again, justice and the law are completely different things. But if we go with your assumptions, law outlines what not to do because it is not in the best interests of the community and repercussions for going against the will of the community. The law is NOT merely a thousand page book detailing how and why to kill a person. It is also NOT the criminal justice "industry," whatever that may be. A "poorly behaved individual" becomes a criminal because they have committed a crime? breaking the law. Giving a person who breaks the law a more "user friendly" description is not very cogent. Keep in mind that ultimately law is not about coming to terms with the various scruples of law? it's about upholding the codified structure so it is a predictable system that people will have trust in it. You may not? but most amerikkan's do. Like in peace.

Also, denial is indeed like a river? that's why we have engineers who build dams and canals. Support you local dredging project.


Fido,

Romulus said to Remus "Amantes sunt amentes" to which Remus replied "aut viam Invenium aut faciam." Romulus could only reply, "quin tacit consentire."

I'd agree with you, and say that it seems to me that the perpetual torment (suffering) of human life is relevant to the awakening upon birth and beginning of existence spent in search of satisfaction - that birth is analogous to judgement and the search for satisfaction some kind of punishment.

So it seems that such a concept of judgement and punishment being inextricable as a dichotomy is perhaps quite similar to the fashion in which our lives occur.

However, I also concur with your view that such an outlook is somewhat 'medieval' in nature; that allowing authorities to act upon a system of dichotomies is unjust, for the reason that existence is simply not founded in dichotomy - a reason proven by notions such as 'dark-matter' and other physics theories; existence is not simply a case of 'x exists' or 'x does not exist' but is actually far more complex, with things existing in somewhat impercievable states thus denouncing human's notion of dichotomy in life.

Just scanned the post and am just replying to this as representational.
Ok, you call a 'mistake'. Lets see how you justify this assertion;


Ok, your anecdotal 'say-so' is meaningless here. You claimed that I am in error. The mere gainsaying of my comment is not an argument. So far, nothing.


Whether it is my opinion or not has no bearing on the truth (or not) of said statement.
I'm still waiting for your evidence of my 'error'.


That’s only your particular opinion.

Well, there you go. You claimed my statement in error and supported that ass-ertion with your authoritative anecdotal 'say-so' and bald-faced gainsaying.
I'm humbled by your incontrovertably logical discertation.

As for the rest of your post, I'm just going to leave it alone rather than slice it to logical bits. It would be a waste of both our time. You have your perspective. Enjoy it.

Nameless, toning it down, and out...
Peace

Wow nameless? I'm sorry to have taken up any of your time as I have struck a delicate chord with you.

When you approach philosophy, try not to take it personally. We are discussing the idea? not the person who conveys it. You are fully entitled to your opinions as anyone else is. But the reason for the forum in the first place is to take the ideas that you have and convey them cogently to others who in turn will respond and display their own. And hoepfuly, some manner of a productive argument will ensue. If we didn't do this, the only thing that would exist is a list of "what I think's" and not a philosophical discussion. We all have varying degrees of knowledge in different backgrounds. I'm sure your background is very good concerning the subject. This is what makes the community rich. And maybe, just maybe your comment deserved a response. Sorry for my? how did you so eloquently put it? ass-ertions?

My response was to your assertions which I thought were problematic. I was hoping that you would explain more on your thoughts about judgment and punishment. Hence the discussion. I particularly enjoy a constructive discussion with a cogent person. I apologize for the mistake.

I think that killing would be unethical and useless in most sense. If the child was rape let the raper suffer the hate and grief of the family. What would executing the criminal achieve other than think that he might wind up in hell. Most people including murderer and raper would rarely express their feeling. By showing them the feeling of the people he will feel more executed than killing him.

Sometimes I am a passionate person. No harm meant.


Any 'ass-ertion' (sorry, damned ego) that I may make (or any other concept) is most certainly available for examination and question. If you have a particular question or two re something I say, my toothache (and ego) will allow me to respond peacefully at the moment. I think that when the tooth is bothering I aught to just stay away from the computer, I do know better, but... I can be such an a$$h0le at times (ego). Sometimes I horrify even myself! *__-
Peace