(no subject)

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

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?

Comments

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Well that's exactly my point, it's a more relevant question, because it takes into account a fact of the matter re absolute certainty.

It's a metaphysical fact of the universe we live in that nothing can be known with absolute certainty.

If you mean, on the other hand, that guilt can be proven beyond any reasonable level of doubt, sure I can agree with that.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

If it is a metaphysical "fact of the universe" then don't we know, with absolute certainty, that nothing can be known with absolute certainty?

It's either not a metaphysical fact, or such things as "facts" exist, in which case, we are only going to execute people who, are in fact guilty. The criteria listed was meant to prevent the scenario of innocent executions; while I recognize that it is possible that all of my criteria would be met and a person is still innocent, such a scenario would require a very elaborate conspiracy of individuals to convict and kill the wrong person. This is the problem in any and all scenarios with humans--we are flawed beings, certainly.

But to appeal to metaphysical uncertainty about the universe to the idea of capital punishment as part of the criminal justice system is to apply apples to oranges.

to my knowledge, the law doesn't recognize or ask metaphysical questions about absolute certainty, nor does it care for brain in vats or malevolent demons; we work within the framework of a sort of naive realism--and in that framework, guilt can be determined with certainty.

There are countless examples of criminal defendants who are simply guilty of the crime in question; sometimes it is less certain--and sometimes even in those cases a guilty verdict is returned.

The four criteria I listed are reasonably stringent to make sure that no innocent party is convicted (again, except in the case of conspiracy among the authorities--but at that point, they can do anything they like--if they are going to frame you for murder how hard for them to have a cop shoot you and frame it as self defense?)

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

If it is a metaphysical "fact of the universe" then don't we know, with absolute certainty, that nothing can be known with absolute certainty?

I should probably express my statement more carefully, to distinguish between difference types of facts. When I say nothing can be known with absolute certainty, what I mean by "nothing" is concerning information regarding literal physical things in the universe. E.g. whether or not Mr Smith was present at 10 Downing street on the night in question etc. No such prohibition applies to metaphysical statements however, which the truth value of can generally be inferred through logic.

As for the rest, that's basically I distinction I make, there is "absolute certainty" and then there is "as certain as we can be". Sure, a court of law doesn't really ask for absolute certainty, but then that's basically because the law implicitly recognizes (in most cases) that it can obtain no such thing.

So the question I asked then becomes salient; given that we can't have absolute certainly (i.e. will never KNOW) if the person we convict is guilty, how can know that their execution is just or not?

Presuming that executing someone accidentally who isn't guilty is unjust, then the answer is, we can't know if any execution is just. That might mean we just have to live with it, or it might mean we should avoid executions altogether, depending on your point of view.

[schquee.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's what I meant. If you mean that we can't be absolutely certain of anything we perceive, then I agree with that.