ext_97971 (
enders-shadow.livejournal.com) wrote in
talkpolitics2009-12-10 01:24 pm
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
Entry tags:
(no subject)
I'm going to attempt to argue a theory here; many may jump on me for the real-world practice that goes on, but this is not about that.
In theory, I support the death penalty. This is an eye-for-an-eye sort of justice.
If you take anothers life, delibrately, in cold blood, in a pre-meditated fashion, you have lost your right to live, IMO.
Now, since this penalty is to be administered by the govt, there ought be some strict guidelines. Here is what I propose:
Either:
A) You are caught in the act by the authorities (but the person dies before he/she can be rushed to the hospital)
B) There is overwhelming evidence against you--personally I feel that four criteria would be met for this:
fingerprint
DNA
eye-witness
video of event (audio is a plus, but I feel these four are sufficient to ensure that the guilty party is the one being punished)
These strict requirements, are, to my knowledge, not required anyplace where the death penalty is enacted. Thus my theoretical support of the death penalty does not support the real-world way in which the death penalty is applied in the US (or elsewhere)
I recognize that in the US (and prolly elsewhere too) the death penalty is applied in a biased manner and that in too many cases the wrong person is executed. I feel that the criteria I laid out are sufficient to ensure no wrongful executions -- though, of course, I am open to hear contrary views on that.
Let us put aside issues of economic cost (which vary) and issues of how to execute (which vary) and focus on the question of: "Is execution for murder an acceptable punishment?"
I feel that it is; I feel that one forfits their right to live when they steal that right from another. I believe in human rights that are inherent but not absolute--the human rights that we all have are what we start with, but we do not necessarily retain them forever. We can lose them.
Thoughts?
In theory, I support the death penalty. This is an eye-for-an-eye sort of justice.
If you take anothers life, delibrately, in cold blood, in a pre-meditated fashion, you have lost your right to live, IMO.
Now, since this penalty is to be administered by the govt, there ought be some strict guidelines. Here is what I propose:
Either:
A) You are caught in the act by the authorities (but the person dies before he/she can be rushed to the hospital)
B) There is overwhelming evidence against you--personally I feel that four criteria would be met for this:
fingerprint
DNA
eye-witness
video of event (audio is a plus, but I feel these four are sufficient to ensure that the guilty party is the one being punished)
These strict requirements, are, to my knowledge, not required anyplace where the death penalty is enacted. Thus my theoretical support of the death penalty does not support the real-world way in which the death penalty is applied in the US (or elsewhere)
I recognize that in the US (and prolly elsewhere too) the death penalty is applied in a biased manner and that in too many cases the wrong person is executed. I feel that the criteria I laid out are sufficient to ensure no wrongful executions -- though, of course, I am open to hear contrary views on that.
Let us put aside issues of economic cost (which vary) and issues of how to execute (which vary) and focus on the question of: "Is execution for murder an acceptable punishment?"
I feel that it is; I feel that one forfits their right to live when they steal that right from another. I believe in human rights that are inherent but not absolute--the human rights that we all have are what we start with, but we do not necessarily retain them forever. We can lose them.
Thoughts?
no subject
Yes, video can be tampered and eyewitnesses can be mistaken; I know this; I'm not a fool.
But to my knowledge, our DNA is unique, just like our fingerprints. So yeah, if there's a rape-murder victim with John Doe's DNA inside her, his fingerprints on the murder weapon, a survellience video of him committing the crime, and a neighbor who saw John Doe fleeing the scene--I think his guilt can be safely concluded.
And this is *theory* not application.
And hey, what's your stance on the trial of KSM? Or Saddam Hussein? Should Hussein *not* have gotten the death penalty? Should KSM get life in prison?
no subject
I don't see the relevance of two specific cases if you're just talking about *theory*. Perhaps you should try to figure out what exactly you want to argue for before you continue.
no subject
I was more just curious your stance on those two specific cases. Since we may not have the 4 criteria I listed on those two specifics, but there seems to be more than enough guilt on the heads of those two--so I'm pondering what you think ought be done with people whose guilt is not in question.
no subject
I think that everybody deserves a fair trial. I don't think that a systematic justification of the death penalty can be based on a single clear-cut case like Hussein, or Hitler, or Stalin, or (pick your oppressive murdering bastard).
I don't know if KSM is actually guilty, or has been tortured into admitting shit he didn't do. It's impossible to trust anything in that area anymore. So I'm not going to comment on it further.
no subject
But we may have reached an impass in our discussion. So be it.
no subject
no subject
The thing with eyewitness testimony is, it's really easy for Authority to convince people (with leading questions and whatnot in early interviews) that they saw things they didn't see. This is especially true if, say, a police detective tells Johnny Eye-Witless that they've got the other three things already, and if this murderer is going to be punished justly, they need him to remember exactly what he saw (and so on and so forth).
So you'll want to make "eyewitness testimony" into "real eyewitness testimony". But "real eyewitness testimony" just means "I saw that person do it", which means that the person is actually guilty. So it's justifiable to put someone to death just in case they're actually guilty of murder... but that renders the other qualifications irrelevant and brings everything back to eyewitness testimony, doesn't it?
no subject
It seems like any one of the criteria could be missing and the others would suffice, but the idea of needing all four is to serve as a check and balance--it's unlikely all would be tampered/forged/misleading.
The question is about whether its ok, once certainty is determined; not how to go about determining certainty.
no subject
Now, if you want to talk about whether the death penalty is permissible given an uncontroversially guilty agent, that's a different kettle of fish entirely. You might find Montague's Punishment as Societal Defense enlightening here, or any of the proportionality literature by Jeff MacMahon.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Oh I'm sure one could feel pleasure in jail. At first it's painful but once he gets used to it, he'll like it.
Or so I was told. ;)
no subject
I'm sure if we get creative we can find all manner of ways of making prison pretty unpleasant for people xD
no subject
no subject
no subject
I mean you don't try somebody in Japan for a murder in England.
While he may have ordered the deaths of Kurds and other people's in his own nation, as a citizen of a nation where the death penalty has been banned for many decades, I should be able to charge your Presidents, Governors and Judges for capitol crimes?
Holy shit.
no subject
no subject
Can we not execute genocidal or ethnic cleansing despots?
How many Kurds did he kill?
no subject
Now consider the freedomizing efforts of the coalition of the willing who are personally responsible for approximately 655,000 indiscriminate Iraqi deaths (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/oct/11/iraq.iraq). With that kind of freedom I completely understand why the tyranny of Saddam might be preferable.
no subject
However, I'm also not going to defend the right of Saddam Hussein to be a murdering jackass.
So how about the case of Slobodan Milosevic?
We, the world community, should engage in and actively stop genocidal dictators--but we shouldn't kill 650,000 civilians in the process. I mean, yeah; that's obvious....right?
no subject
On another hand, Slobodan Milosevic was being tried for war crimes (a trial that lasted over 5years), including genocide, at the ICC in Hague, Holland. He died of natural causes in the War Criminal Prison.
This entry is about capital punishment. This thread is assuming that genocidal maniacs not only deserve execution, but assumes they will get execution when convicted. By hanging, electric chair, lethal injection, guillotine, gun squad, etc. But an execution never the less.
At the modern international tribunals, capital punishment is banned, and conviction results in a sentence for a term of years. The convicted person serves his or her sentence in a national prison system, whose country has agreed with the tribunal to effect execution of sentence.
Not saying that rotting is prison is a better solution then chopping off their head. Not saying it is more or less humane. What I am saying is lowering the justice to the level of the crime is vendetta disguised as justice.
Use of the death penalty around the world (as of June 2009).
Blue... Abolished for all offenses (94)
Green... Abolished for all offenses except under special circumstances (10)
Orange... Retains, though not used for at least 10 years (35)
Red... Retains death penalty (58)* *Note that, while laws vary between U.S. states, it is considered retentionist because the federal death penalty is still in active use.
no subject
Your language is loaded; you imply that it is lowering the level of justice. A life for a life (an eye for an eye style justice) is more just, to some, than a life behind bars for a life.
no subject
Rape my loved ones and I'll rape you.
Speed on my treet I'll speed on yours.
this isn't justice. It's chaos.