Capitol Hill Blue Forums Life and Moral Issues Crime & Punishment Capital punishment: Why not?

Oh, I suspect we could squeeze you in somewhere under "etc.", Phil.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

So what? That is not an argument against capital punishment -- it is simply an expressed preference that only the right ones die. It would mean a greater benefit to the group/society in that the right person almost always gets executed or sentenced to die, which is in complete agreement with the political philosophy of collectivism, isn't it?
Yours,
Issodhos

Bellatrix, I'm not bringing this up with you personally, but because you bring up an opinion I argued against on a similar thread last year. No matter how much we think we are protecting potentential victims, it's wrong to execute someone for a crime not yet committed. You cannot execute someone for something they haven't done.

You can lock them up for life on the basis of what they've already done - and in some states you can execute them for that - but not for what we fear they might do.

I should, perhaps, not participate in this thread, as I am, in principle, a supporter of the death penalty. I believe that Issodhos's use of "collectivist" threw many potential participants off. I took it to mean, broadly, the group addressing an individual's transgression. Any time the "State" is involved in an execution, it is a "collectivist" activity - that is, the executioner is not acting on his own behest, but "on behalf of" the society as a whole. If I am wrong, I stand to be corrected.

Perhaps one way of framing the debate might be to address the several bases for the use of the death penalty. Briefly, some of the arguments for it have been: 1) social vengeance (as opposed to individual); 2) general deterrence (fear of punishment); 3) specific deterrence (he won't do it again); 4) "Justice" - having a punishment that roughly equates with the heinousness of the crime (balancing the scales model); 5) Societal convenience (it's cheaper to kill them than to keep them); 6) irredeemability (or the extermination model); and 7) finality (providing "closure" for the victims' families). Opposition, therefore, would logically address each or any of these affirmative bases (or ones that I haven't thought of).

I personally fall into the 4th and 6th positions in my support, but have concerns about the "beyond doubt" aspects in its practical application. If fairly applied, I believe the death penalty is appropriate in certain, relatively rare, circumstances. And when I say "fairly" I do not mean applied equally to various racial or ethnic groups, but that the punishment is appropriate to the crime. I can elaborate if necessary, but I am interested in the counter-arguments, so I don't really want to become a focus for the discussion.

I have a feeling that this thread, like the slavery thread is headed in the "no argument is possible" direction. Hopefully this one wont be linked back to smoking bans.........

No NW, you are not alone. I too am for the death penalty and I have more respect for the jury than Hos has. I think! He is never clear with where he stands and seldom answers a question directly.

One of the most shocking jury trials came with O.J. California has the death penalty and it have been that the people of California did not want to kill him for his crimes. People forget that O.J. was at one time a true hero. I was shocked when he was not guilty but I was not on that jury. I do believe that had the death penalty been the law, Manson would be long gone and out of the news as some kind of martyr.

Why do we even discuss this as it is a state right and the citizens of the state have the authority. Silly me, I believe this has nothing to do with a collectivist's point of view but simply a cheap argument for CHB. We have improved our forensic lab work and hopefully it will be continued so that nobody gets the death penalty if there is a shadow of a doubt.

I popped in to get my PMs and again see little more than s*** stirring from the same old same old.

Yes, it would have been nice if that thread had been left alone to play itself out to its natural conclusion, but what the hell.....;-)
Yours,
Issodhos

But, is there any real principled objection that could be made from a collectivist or, narrowing it down, from a socialist philosophical view -- something that does not depend on emotion or on the ambiguities of “social justice” or other identity politics?

No. Collectivism is evil. Individualism is GOOD!

6 points!!!

It is being used in the political sense of the Rights of the individual being subordinate to the interests of the state, the will of the people, the greater good of the group/society -- whichever suits the reader.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

It is not a case of which is good and which is evil, Fermi. It is a question of which one provides a moral or principled basis for rejecting state executions of prisoners that could be applied universally.

But then, I am still trying to figure out where Schlack got the notion that anything written here equates collectivism with slavery.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos