Death Penalty. Yes or No

[Rave]

I wasn't exactly trying to justify it, though.

Whenever there's a death penalty debate (and I've done several of them), it always seems to me that the "arguments" boil down to chaff and wheat. There are some arguments used, for example, to argue against that, in my opinion, just don't hold water. The argument about cost is one of them.

Another is the argument about executing innocent people by mistake. Well, that argument in itself has some validity, but isn't (so far at least) actually the core of the objection. So far, whenever I've had this argument, that is a line that's always trotted out ..... but (again, so far) whenever I've pushed it turns out that those arguing against the DP would be against it even if there was certainty. They're against it, and that line of logic is justification, but their stance wouldn't change anyway. It isn't the core of the objection to the DP, but supports the belief.

O.K., yes you're right, in my case at least. So I'll bite.

The possibility of a wrongful conviction is not my reason for opposing the death penalty. It's just that it's fun to throw the 'would you still be happy if it was you' argument in the face of people who are in favour of the DP in an attempt to expose their moral cowardice.

If someone believes that it's wrong to take a life under any circumstances, then that's what they believe.

That's not what I believe though. As it happens, my mother is a pacifist, but I'm not. I don't have a problem with killing people in a war if they're attempting to curtail your freedoms- or anybody else's, for that matter. I don't have a problem with armed police, or any other lawful instrument of a democratic government, taking a life if it'll mean saving others. If I thought that I personally could save an innocent life- be it a member of my family, or any other person- by killing someone who was intent on harm, then I like to think that I would have the courage to do so.

I am absolutely against the death penalty in its institutional form, and this is why. A person's actions, and reactions, are clearly as a result of their personality- or in simple scientific terms, the way their brain is wired up. There are only a few contributory factors to how a person's brain is wired up; the big two are obviously how they were born, and how they were brought up as a child- nature and nurture if you will excuse the possible cliche. The simple fact is that no-one can choose their parents, and hence their genes, and hence how their brain is wired when they're born- nor can they choose how they are raised from childhood to adulthood. Consequently, no-one can choose what sort of person they turn into. To me, that's a very simple logical progression, but if I'm wrong, please ignore the rest of this post and tell me why, otherwise the argument will rapidly degenerate into a pointless mess. I'm also a veteran of many DP debates.

So, carrying on from that, not out of any conviction that you won't prove me wrong, just because I'm impatient: if nobody can choose the sort of person they turn out to be, then nobody can realistically influence how they will act- and react- when they mix with society. Sure, we all have the illusion of choice, but realistically the way we act in any situation is due to the brain wiring that we ended up with as a result with our genes and our upbringing, neither of which we had any choice over. If, therefore, we commit a crime of any sort, it's our parents' fault; except it's not their fault because their genes and upbringing were their parents fault, and so on ad infinitum. So- and I still think this is a basical logical progression which I'm asking you to find fault with- nothing is ever anybody's fault.

I'm going to stop here and start a new post because my computer is a bit unstable and I'd be annoyed if it BSOD'ed if I lost all my work so far. I will carry on presently.

[Rave]

So- carrying on- nothing is ever anybody's fault. Since I believe that to be true, I can only logically think that the entire concept of punishment is fundamentally flawed. How can punishing someone for something that was not their fault not be absolutely, fundamentally unjust? It wasn't their fault.

This is where, in previous arguments, I've been written off as a liberal handwringing nutter.

"Oh yeah, Rave, let's not punish anybody, and then see what we get. It'll be anarchy!"

But I'm not stupid. I recognise of course that you cannot possibly run a functioning society on the basis that no-one is responsible, or more importantly answerable, for their actions. So, obviously, we have to have a judicial system to enforce the laws that are passed (theoretically) for our mutual benefit. And, obviously, if people prove themselves incapable of following those laws to the detriment of any other member of society, then action needs to be taken against them. That is fine. What is not fine is that that action should involve hurting, discomfitting, or in any way inconveniencing them purely for the sake of punishing them. What does that achieve? Two wrongs don't make a right. The pain and suffering of one individual cannot be undone by the suffering of another. Much of our belief system in this country if predicated on the idea that 'justice' is done when suffering is inflicted on someone who has done some wrong to another person- and yet that idea is, IMO, total bollocks.

Under my belief system, there are two good reasons to lock someone up if they are found guilty of a crime, and one dubious one. The two good ones are that we might possibly reform them while they're under the control of a state agency, and that society is protected from them while they're under lock and key. The dubious one is that locking them up might act as a deterrent to others- and themselves, if they're ever released. It's dubious not because I have a problem with deterrence, but because study after study has shown that in practice deterrence has little or no effect. Locking someone up is, in practice, punishment, because the vast majority of people would rather be free to do what they want. However, it's not punishment for punishment's sake, rather the punishment is a consequence of the need to lock them up for society's benefit.

My fundamental objection to the death penalty is that it's punishment for punishment's sake. Any attempt to argue that killing people saves money over the cost of locking them up for the rest of their lives is basically a lie. You can point to differences in the US and UK legal system all you like, but to argue that the US system somehow puts costly legal obfustication in the way of due process would be a bit absurd. Realistically, it's cheaper to give a person a whole of life sentence than it is to kill them, and the chances of them escaping from a maximum security prison are effectively nil. So, the only true reason to kill someone is to punish them.

[Koolpc]

Rave, what you have written is a load of rubbish mate. Where did you get all that from? A poster on one of your buses? lol

[Rave]

That's me told.

[directhex]

That's me told.

absolutely

until bodies are hitting the floor, it's a bunch o' rubbish

bear in mind this is the guy who thought the Abu Ghraib stuff was fine, since they probably deserved it

[Saracen]

I'll omit the quotes, but this refers to Rave's posts above.

I can see the argument you make, Rave, but I'm not sure I'd agree with the conclusions even if I agreed with the logic. But happily I'm saved from worrying about that by not agreeing with the logic.

Yes, there are factors that influence our upbringing, and personally, I'm happy to accept that nature and nurture are both part of it.

What I don't accept is any notion that, perhaps with the exception of very severe cases, we are entirely preprogrammed and controlled by it, and have no element of free will. It is certainly the case that you will find some common indicators in the backgrounds of some categories of serious offenders, serial killers and child-abusers among them. It seems, for example, that abusers were often abused themselves.

But, and here's the problem ..... for every example of a child-abuser or a serial killer that has those relevant indicators, there are many that have those indicators and don't turn into serial killers (or whatever).

Moreover, if it were the case that either the relevant genetic or environmental background had entirely preprogrammed those individuals, your argument would preclude the possibility that those individuals will ever be anything other than what they are - and by the evidence of their own actions, what they are is a danger to society. Your argument suggests that their background precludes any possibility of rehabilitation, and if they had no volition in their actions before, will have none in the future. So, whatever buttons got pushed or opportunities arose in the past, if they got pushed or arose in the future it would result in the same consequences - i.e. a murderous rampage.

It's actually an argument for the death penalty, because said individuals, by their programming, are and always will be a danger to society. So why should society take the risk of them killing again - even if that refers to the killing of another prison inmate, or a guard?

But, as I said, I'm not convinced about the extent of any programming that occurs, simply because so many people will backgrounds with those same elements don't turn out the same way. If it was all genetics, then surely siblings would be serial killers too? If it was genetics plus upbringing, then again, what about siblings?

I believe we ALL have an element of choice. I can't prove that, but I've yet to see a credible attempt at proving we don't.

And legally speaking, you have to bear in mind the "insane" element. That is a legal term, not a medical one, and it certainly doesn't mean the wild-eyed frothing at the mouth sort of TV "insane" person we see mischaracterised. It's about whether you have the mental faculty to understand right and wrong, to understand the effect of your actions. And if you don't (such as if you were demonstrably preprogrammed with no volition or free will) you couldn't be convicted of murder .... or not in the UK anyway ..... and hence wouldn't be facing the DP even if it was reinstated. You'd end up in a high-security hospital, not a prison.

[Rave]

I'll omit the quotes,

I won't though, because I don't want there to be any ambiguity about what I'm replying to. If you object to having your post 'sliced and diced' I apologise.

Yes, there are factors that influence our upbringing, and personally, I'm happy to accept that nature and nurture are both part of it.

What I don't accept is any notion that, perhaps with the exception of very severe cases, we are entirely preprogrammed and controlled by it, and have no element of free will.

What provides us with that free will then, if not some part of our brains?

For example: say I meet you in person and offer you a peppermint. You would consider whether or not you wanted one, and then answer yes or no. On the face of it, you're exercising your free will when you make that choice.

But what has actually happened is that once your ears and auditory systems have received and processed the question, the thinking part of your brain (not sure what it's called, not a brain scientist, unfortunately) sets to and considers the question, and considers the issues involved- such as whether you're hungry, whether you like peppermints, whether I'm someone who you're happy to accept a pepermint from etc. etc. It'll refer to your memory for the answers to some of those questions, and when it has weighed up all the answers it'll make a decision about whether you want the peppermint or not. So far, so free will.

The point is though that the thinking part of your brain (the way you think, if you will) was wired up before I appeared on the scene and offered you the mint- and the memories it'll refer to were in your head prior to my arrival too. Consequently, the answer to my question was effectively determined before I asked it. So where's the free will in that?

If you don't believe this to be the case, what do you believe? Where is this free will coming from? Is there the biological equivalent of a random number generator in our brains injecting noise into our thoughts? Is the free will somehow beamed in by some higher power?

It is certainly the case that you will find some common indicators in the backgrounds of some categories of serious offenders, serial killers and child-abusers among them. It seems, for example, that abusers were often abused themselves.

But, and here's the problem ..... for every example of a child-abuser or a serial killer that has those relevant indicators, there are many that have those indicators and don't turn into serial killers (or whatever).

Why's that a problem? If we believe (I believe, in any case, that this is the current scientific consensus) that some part of our personalities is genetic, you could get two babies, then raise them under absolutely identical conditions, and end up with two adults with quite different personalities. The differences in their personalities would be entirely due to their genes. So, extrapolating from that, there's no problem with a situation in which, if you subjected both children to abuse, one would turn into an abuser themselves, and one would not. The other would still be at high risk of mental health issues, self harm, etc. etc., but because they're different people they would be affected by the abuse in different ways.

Moreover, if it were the case that either the relevant genetic or environmental background had entirely preprogrammed those individuals, your argument would preclude the possibility that those individuals will ever be anything other than what they are

Not at all- there is no set point when a person's brain wiring is suddenly 'fixed' and can develop no further. What matters is the state of that person's brain when they commited their crime. There is nothing to preclude the possibility that they can be changed after that point.

Your argument suggests that their background precludes any possibility of rehabilitation, and if they had no volition in their actions before, will have none in the future. So, whatever buttons got pushed or opportunities arose in the past, if they got pushed or arose in the future it would result in the same consequences - i.e. a murderous rampage.

My argument does not suggest that that is a certainty. If that person were to be released from prison without any rehabilitation having been effected, then that would seem likely. But I'm not suggesting that releasing them would be a good idea, nor have I ever, so- so what?

But, as I said, I'm not convinced about the extent of any programming that occurs, simply because so many people will backgrounds with those same elements don't turn out the same way. If it was all genetics, then surely siblings would be serial killers too? If it was genetics plus upbringing, then again, what about siblings?

Well, erm, because that's how sexual reproduction works?! Siblings don't have the same genetic personality just the same way that they don't look identical. Pretty much every gameta that a parent produces contains a unique selection of their genes; consequently all children that are not identical twins are by definition genetically different.

Gamete - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I believe we ALL have an element of choice. I can't prove that, but I've yet to see a credible attempt at proving we don't.

Well, that was my attempt. I have tried to break it down into component parts as best I can so that the logical progressions that I have made are clear. If you find my explanation incredible then I hope it will be easy for you to point out either where I am scientifically mistaken, or where my logic is flawed.

And legally speaking, you have to bear in mind the "insane" element. That is a legal term, not a medical one, and it certainly doesn't mean the wild-eyed frothing at the mouth sort of TV "insane" person we see mischaracterised. It's about whether you have the mental faculty to understand right and wrong, to understand the effect of your actions. And if you don't (such as if you were demonstrably preprogrammed with no volition or free will) you couldn't be convicted of murder .... or not in the UK anyway ..... and hence wouldn't be facing the DP even if it was reinstated. You'd end up in a high-security hospital, not a prison.

I'm not sure where this came from, as I made no reference to sanity, insanity, or the ability to distinguish between right and wrong in my previous post. I also made it quite clear that society must make a basic assumption of free will just to function. Just because it is necessary to assume something, however, doesn't necessarily make it true.

In fact my whole argument would be academic were it not for the fact that I believe that it logically proves that the concept of punishment simply for the sake of punishment is entirely bogus- and, moreover, morally abhorrent. People make decisions- sometimes they make the decision to commit terrible crimes. Their brains made that decision, and scientifically I hope I have shown that the way that their brains are wired up is due to factors beyond their control, I.E. their genes and their upbringing. Consequently, when you inflict suffering on a person to punish them, you are inflicting suffering on them for something that they were always bound to do, which stikes me as an inherently wicked thing to do. We, as a civilised society, should not do this. This argument is by no means specific to the death penalty- indeed it applies just as much to the 'slap burglars in irons' brigade- but it is especially applicable, since death is the only judicial sentence that exists purely to punish.

Please excuse any typos, I have composed this on an unfamiliar (laptop) keyboard.

[minerva]

In my country we don't have that and sometimes we think that some people really need that kind of punishment because the law does not function as it should be so they are out of jail in some cases after 24 hours they are commited a crime so if we kill one maybe we can protect other 10.

[Lucio]

In fact my whole argument would be academic were it not for the fact that I believe that it logically proves that the concept of punishment simply for the sake of punishment is entirely bogus- and, moreover, morally abhorrent. People make decisions- sometimes they make the decision to commit terrible crimes. Their brains made that decision, and scientifically I hope I have shown that the way that their brains are wired up is due to factors beyond their control, I.E. their genes and their upbringing.

That seems rather fatalistic, we do not control our destiny because it's all the fault of our genes and our parents? That's one step away from saying it's all God's fault...

For example, you get put in a situation where you might or might not commit a crime, are you saying that the same person will react the same way every time? I don't believe they would, I think it is entirely plausible for a person to react differently in the exact same circumstances.

[Saracen]

I won't though, because I don't want there to be any ambiguity about what I'm replying to. If you object to having your post 'sliced and diced' I apologise.

Not a problem at all. I just didn't think the last reply needed it. This one probably does.

What provides us with that free will then, if not some part of our brains?

I presume that's exactly what provides it, but it doesn't mean our responses are preprogrammed. We can choose .... whether it be to accept a peppermint or not, or whether to kill or not.

But what has actually happened is that once your ears and auditory systems have received and processed the question, the thinking part of your brain (not sure what it's called, not a brain scientist, unfortunately) sets to and considers the question, and considers the issues involved- such as whether you're hungry, whether you like peppermints, whether I'm someone who you're happy to accept a pepermint from etc. etc. It'll refer to your memory for the answers to some of those questions, and when it has weighed up all the answers it'll make a decision about whether you want the peppermint or not. So far, so free will.

You make it sound like a computer processing data, and to a point, it is, I suppose. But you also make it sound like the answer is predetermined, and that the existence of "I" is an illusion - that any sense of id or consciousness is an illusion. Well, not to me I'm not. Deciding whether I want a peppermint at any given moment is not the result of fully pre-programmed autonomic responses - it's a choice. As is whether to kill or not.

The point is though that the thinking part of your brain (the way you think, if you will) was wired up before I appeared on the scene and offered you the mint- and the memories it'll refer to were in your head prior to my arrival too. Consequently, the answer to my question was effectively determined before I asked it. So where's the free will in that?

That, I don't accept. I decide. Sometimes I'll accept, sometimes not. And it'll depend on more than predetermined factors. It'll depend on whether I've just had a cup of coffee .... or am just about to. It'll depend on when dinner is due. It'll depend on whether I'm concentrating on some problem or whether I am just chilling out, it'll depend on whether guests are due, and so on. And on whether I fancy one right now.

I don't accept that the brain simply computes the answer based on predetermined factors. I choose. That's the free will. And I choose not to kill, unless the circumstances are such that I judge it necessary ..... and worth the consequences.

If you don't believe this to be the case, what do you believe? Where is this free will coming from? Is there the biological equivalent of a random number generator in our brains injecting noise into our thoughts? Is the free will somehow beamed in by some higher power?

I've no idea where it's coming from. Perhaps it just is. Maybe it's some "higher power", as you put it. I've been unable to prove it isn't. Or is.

But I don't have to be able to understand something to believe in it. I believe in gravity, but don't ask me to explain how it works. Experience (so far) just tells me it does. When someone switches it off, I'll revise that belief. I also believe the Sun will rise in the East in the morning. But don't ask me if some higher power programmed that deliberately, or whether it's just the way things worked out after the big bang.

Maybe my experience of id is all illusion. It's one of those existential questions that rather defies proof either way. But until someone comes up with a convincing alternative, I'll just continue to believe that I have free will.

.....

Well, that was my attempt. I have tried to break it down into component parts as best I can so that the logical progressions that I have made are clear. If you find my explanation incredible then I hope it will be easy for you to point out either where I am scientifically mistaken, or where my logic is flawed.

It's not the logical progression that's the problem - it's the basic premise that all our 'decisions' are preprogrammed by the factors you mention that I don't accept. As far as I'm concerned, that assertion is far from proven. I'm not going to even try to scientifically disprove it - I'm not a scientist. But you're welcome to try to scientifically prove it if you wish. Maybe you'll come up with some argument or evidence I've not seen before. But I'm not holding my breath. My bet is that your claims about pre-programming will either be absolutely impossible to prove one way or the other, or very close to that short of very long-term large scale scientific testing. So in the meantime, I'll just continue to believe that when I put the kettle on, I decide whether to have tea or coffee .... or hot chocolate, right there and then, not a combination of genes and upbringing.

[CommandoShepard]

I won't though, because I don't want there to be any ambiguity about what I'm replying to. If you object to having your post 'sliced and diced' I apologise.


What provides us with that free will then, if not some part of our brains?

For example: say I meet you in person and offer you a peppermint. You would consider whether or not you wanted one, and then answer yes or no. On the face of it, you're exercising your free will when you make that choice.

But what has actually happened is that once your ears and auditory systems have received and processed the question, the thinking part of your brain (not sure what it's called, not a brain scientist, unfortunately) sets to and considers the question, and considers the issues involved- such as whether you're hungry, whether you like peppermints, whether I'm someone who you're happy to accept a pepermint from etc. etc. It'll refer to your memory for the answers to some of those questions, and when it has weighed up all the answers it'll make a decision about whether you want the peppermint or not. So far, so free will.

The point is though that the thinking part of your brain (the way you think, if you will) was wired up before I appeared on the scene and offered you the mint- and the memories it'll refer to were in your head prior to my arrival too. Consequently, the answer to my question was effectively determined before I asked it. So where's the free will in that?

If you don't believe this to be the case, what do you believe? Where is this free will coming from? Is there the biological equivalent of a random number generator in our brains injecting noise into our thoughts? Is the free will somehow beamed in by some higher power?




Why's that a problem? If we believe (I believe, in any case, that this is the current scientific consensus) that some part of our personalities is genetic, you could get two babies, then raise them under absolutely identical conditions, and end up with two adults with quite different personalities. The differences in their personalities would be entirely due to their genes. So, extrapolating from that, there's no problem with a situation in which, if you subjected both children to abuse, one would turn into an abuser themselves, and one would not. The other would still be at high risk of mental health issues, self harm, etc. etc., but because they're different people they would be affected by the abuse in different ways.



Not at all- there is no set point when a person's brain wiring is suddenly 'fixed' and can develop no further. What matters is the state of that person's brain when they commited their crime. There is nothing to preclude the possibility that they can be changed after that point.



My argument does not suggest that that is a certainty. If that person were to be released from prison without any rehabilitation having been effected, then that would seem likely. But I'm not suggesting that releasing them would be a good idea, nor have I ever, so- so what?



Well, erm, because that's how sexual reproduction works?! Siblings don't have the same genetic personality just the same way that they don't look identical. Pretty much every gameta that a parent produces contains a unique selection of their genes; consequently all children that are not identical twins are by definition genetically different.

Well, that was my attempt. I have tried to break it down into component parts as best I can so that the logical progressions that I have made are clear. If you find my explanation incredible then I hope it will be easy for you to point out either where I am scientifically mistaken, or where my logic is flawed.



I'm not sure where this came from, as I made no reference to sanity, insanity, or the ability to distinguish between right and wrong in my previous post. I also made it quite clear that society must make a basic assumption of free will just to function. Just because it is necessary to assume something, however, doesn't necessarily make it true.

In fact my whole argument would be academic were it not for the fact that I believe that it logically proves that the concept of punishment simply for the sake of punishment is entirely bogus- and, moreover, morally abhorrent. People make decisions- sometimes they make the decision to commit terrible crimes. Their brains made that decision, and scientifically I hope I have shown that the way that their brains are wired up is due to factors beyond their control, I.E. their genes and their upbringing. Consequently, when you inflict suffering on a person to punish them, you are inflicting suffering on them for something that they were always bound to do, which stikes me as an inherently wicked thing to do. We, as a civilised society, should not do this. This argument is by no means specific to the death penalty- indeed it applies just as much to the 'slap burglars in irons' brigade- but it is especially applicable, since death is the only judicial sentence that exists purely to punish.

Please excuse any typos, I have composed this on an unfamiliar (laptop) keyboard.

Finally someone who agrees with me on this.

[Legria]

100% proven guilty with not doubts then yes, death penalty

[CommandoShepard]

absolutely

until bodies are hitting the floor, it's a bunch o' rubbish

bear in mind this is the guy who thought the Abu Ghraib stuff was fine, since they probably deserved it

Who thought Abu Ghraib was fine? Koolpc or Rave?

[Blitzen]

[Rave]

I have been conversing on MSN with CS, hence the thread bump, please excuse the random bump as I am an unreliable chat partner and left him dangling for quite a while.

[kalniel]

I have been conversing on MSN with CS, hence the thread bump, please excuse the random bump as I am an unreliable chat partner and left him dangling for quite a while.

3 years by any chance?