Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (15836)	6/6/2001 3:43:39 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 82486

What are the arguments?---- That it is a fitting response to heinous crime, and therefore validates the system of accountability and hierarchy of values reflected in the determination of offenses. It is expensive precisely because we bend over backwards to avoid mistake, and therefore shows the scrupulousness of the system. Whether or not it is a deterrent to murderers(and that is a matter of controversy), it impresses upon the minds of the populace the seriousness with which we take the administration of justice, and vindicates the moral order, and thus has a culture- forming value. And if the exercise of the death penalty is in itself a legitimate activity, and we have taken due precautions against mistakes, the fact that we may inadvertently execute the wrong person is no more momentous that the fact that people die due to otherwise legitimate activities all the time. We may change our judgement of the matter upon further reflection. However, it is not arbitrary, and must be congruent with the overall tenor of our moral reflection, or it is an assault upon the societal order. The death penalty is a fitting response to heinous crimes (not merely murder, but murder with aggravating circumstances) because we must preserve a sense of proportionality in sentencing, and in the schedule of penalties. By the time we reach simple murder, we exhaust our recourse to simple imprisonment as punishment. If we want to differentiate between the ordinary crime and even fouler acts, we resort to execution. We could, of course,chronically torture the inmates to achieve a similar effect, but we have decided that execution is more humane than torture. For these reasons, I think one starts with the assumption that execution is a fitting response to some crimes, and then asks if there is, nevertheless, reason to abstain. I have already said why I think the reasons of expense and concern for mistakes are insufficient. I should add that I think that calling it "barbaric" is somewhat absurd. There is nothing inherent in the notion of civilization that precludes execution for a restricted list of offenses. Civilization would preclude making the execution a "circus", instead of a solemn occasion, or executing for trivial reasons. It would dictate that the execution be relatively humane, as is the case with lethal injection, for example. But it would not preclude the act itself.

To: Neocon who wrote (15836)	6/6/2001 3:45:37 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Well if you want to be humane. Take Hodgkin's suggestion of a walled facility where there was no intervention inside. Like a penal colony. Personally if I were given a choice I would select the death penalty over this. He is right it is more fair to put them out of society in a place like this than to put them out and continue to try to take care of them as though they were still a part of it. So, how about we make it clear that if they cross a the point of no return to society we give them to each other but an option to go to eternal justice or the colony?