That isn't what the word, "justice" means. Look it up.

Yes, while he is in prison (given he doesn't escape, and given he does not murder someone in prison) then he won't murder. But, when let out of prison, for this or that reason, he can murder again.

And, I think deterrence has slipped your mind.

Is that such a far reach from the dictionary definition of justice? I guess whether or not the death penalty is considered to be just or fair punishment is relative to he who judges it to be so. I personally think it's justified in some cases; I just think it's an act of lawful retaliation based on emotional forces alone, and I think some people just don't want to be honest about that. You can lock someone away for life in solitary confinement. That's a pretty sure way of preventing them from murdering again.

I said that I have doubts as to whether or not it's actually affective at deterring someone who really wants to commit a crime and believes they can get away with it. That wasn't really an objection, because I feel that way about law in general.

In any case, since we can (and are) rationally discussing and arguing about the reasons for the death penalty, you seem to me wrong when you write that:

I suppose that capital punishment can be justified from an emotional point of view, but I don't think there's any type of logical rationale for it.

Since I have presented three logical rationale for it. That you reject them, or that you have doubts about them, do not make them irrational or emotional.

What makes you think that the prospect of being caught and punished for committing a crime does not deter some people. What would be your evidence for that, I wonder? Do you think that if, for example, rape were not a punishable offence, there would not be more rapes? Any particular reason that you believe it? Do you think that the police then are a waste of money?

Your rationale does not exclude emotional motivations. For starters, if we're defining justice as simply being a fair reward or punishment for an action, then it does not exclude the emotional motivations for capital punishment. Your second rationale, that it prevents the murderer from murdering again, is not the only effective method for prevention, which leads me to believe this is also based on emotion. This leads me to conclude that capital punishment has little to do with rationality and more to do with an emotional desire for retaliation.



OK, I do think that the prospect of being caught for a crime does deter some people. What I should have said was that it's clear that many people who are predisposed to criminality, for environmental or biological reasons, don't give a damn about the law.

Justice is not revenge. Capital punishment prevents the murderer from murdering again. That you are skeptical of deterrence is not an objection.

Justice is not revenge, but the death penalty is advertized as vengeance when it is not... Society is not the injured party, but rather takes on the injury of the injured individual and tries to make him whole...It should not celebrate the death of any member, and should kill one only with the deapest shame at its failure, and remorse...The Athenians used to take those they killed as punsihment like so much trash, and toss them across the border; but that behavior grew out of the belief that if they did not punish wrongdoing, the the gods would punish them all... There is the spirituality of morals at work... If capital punishment only prevents those who kill from killing again, then it is a failure; and what part of punishment is not??? People used to climb out of trenches in the first big war and walk into maching gun fire singing: The bells of hell go tinga ling a ling for you but not for me... No one believes they will get caught, and it does not matter how many find they are wrong because people aways feel that way...There is no need for the excessive punishment... Punish in equality with the crime with the understanding that if some idiot kills out of stupidity, that no punishment will be just, or will correct others

I don't know who advertises capital punishment as revenge. But I agree mostly with what else you write. (Yes, that's a chilling ditty).

Among rational men there are no conflict of interests.

I suppose that capital punishment can be justified from an emotional point of view, but I don't think there's any type of logical rationale for it.

And execution by the state is not vengeance. Who is being vengeful? The state? How can the state be vengeful (or emotional). In fact, that is the point of not placing retribution into any personal hands, but into the impersonal hands of the state. Just so it is not revenge.

We cant espect all men to be rational, though.

Its cheaper for the state than keeping the guy locked up for life, and its safier than making him work on prision.

If the state executes due to emotional popular pressure I would say that is revenge, and if the state has laws that allow such executions, again due to emotional popular pressure, I would say that is, again, revenge.

Yes, a lot of people don't care about the law. So what? What is that supposed to show?

If you read my sentence in context you would know that what I'm saying is that whether or not you commit a crime is most dependent on biological and environmental pressures, not law. This is nether here or there, though.

What the law happens to be is a part of the environmental pressures. Whether an action is a crime depends, of course, on what the law is. If there were not a law making murder a crime, murder would not be a crime.

I'm aware that the law is an environmental pressure. I'm just saying that it's not the most powerful environmental pressure when it comes to human behavior.

I don't know how to judge that. Are there any statistics? Anyway, lots of people avoid doing bad things partly because it is against the law to do them.

Statistics show that people living in areas that are more conducive to crime are more likely to commit crimes regardless of the law.

My opinion on the Death Penalty is that it is justifiable only under certain circumstances but I won't explain my reasoning here. They are too complicated. And I prefer to leave the thread open for arguments either way. I will simply state my opinion: That there are in the world monstrous inhumans (not humans ... for to call them such would be irrational) whom the world would be far better off without.

But I don't understand why it is you say its revenge. The point of impersonal state executions is that it is not revenge. It is punishment. If individuals or groups take retaliation into their own hands, that becomes revenge. It is true that some people (the family of victims of murder, for instance) may feel avenged. But that is different. We cannot help how people feel.

Should the one(s) who order(s) another to death be put to death as well?

The state is not the avenger here, but the tool of revenge. If you lock someone into a room with a lion, and the lion kills the person, does it make sense to say it was the lion that killed the person, not you? You used the lion as a tool of killing. The state is similar: if it is pressured into giving a death penalty it is much more likely to give one. What those in power have to lose, anyway? If you pressure the state into giving a death penalty, as the masses can do, id say thats, indeed, revenge.

And the whole concept of death penalty, as we know it nowadays, is based on revenge. Penal systems, at least in teory, are based in the idea that people can change... so death penalty would only make sense if someone was considered hopeless... then why are some people merely locked forever, while some are killed? The desire for revenge coming from the masses, I would say. Its very easy to find people who think murderers, rapists, etc should be killed.

Your signature says no =)

My opinion on the Death Penalty is that it is justifiable only under certain circumstances but I won't explain my reasoning here. They are too complicated. And I prefer to leave the thread open for arguments either way. I will simply state my opinion: That there are in the world monstrous inhumans (not humans ... for to call them such would be irrational) whom the world would be far better off without.

If you're merely asking if it's possible for the DP to be "justifiable", yes it is possible. Anybody can "justify" anything.

Personally, I am against the DP in the USA, but I can see how people can "justify" it.

-ITL-