The Williams Execution
Those who my previous writings should know that I am against it. As are many others. Except Unlike most of them, it is not because I am morally opposed to the death sentence or because I think there is a good chance that he is innocent. Rather it is because the probability of non guilt should be much lower for a death sentence than for a guilty verdict. How can rational people disagree with that? Yet you almost never see that argument invoked when a court or governor make a decision. I say that "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt but not beyond a 'shadow of a doubt' should be an OFFICIAL mitigating circumstance that stops an execution. You need not be opposed to executions in general or have a strong opinion that the person is innocent to invoke it and settle for a life sentence.
Meanwhile the point of my OP was derailed by a discussion as to whether death is worse than a life sentence. But the OP assumed it was worse, partly because it is irreversible and contended that the probability of innocence need only be a tiny number to escape execution even if it is too small to escape conviction. How can that not be correct?
This seems to be the viewpoint that drives states to abolish the death penalty. Only 21 states currently have a death penalty
Meanwhile the point of my OP was derailed by a discussion as to whether death is worse than a life sentence. But the OP assumed it was worse, partly because it is irreversible and contended that the probability of innocence need only be a tiny number to escape execution even if it is too small to escape conviction. How can that not be correct?
I also think the problem with the death penalty is that it doesn’t feel like justice no matter what side of the coin it is. If it’s a guilty person, then killing him means he gets to stop living with what he has done. If it’s an innocent person, that means any chance of getting out and being able to see yourself gain your freedom is extinguished in an instance. The idea that your family getting some restitution is a replacement for that goes against my moral intuitions.
That wasn't the question. The question is how many years of unjust imprisonment are = 1 wrongful death sentence.
Personally i would prefer immediate death than life in prison if i am innocent and it's not even remotely close and no one i know and respect would even blink at choosing death over life in prison as an innocent, i can't even make up a model of a human being i would consider having dignity that wouldn't prefer immediate death immensely, like let me repeat it, it's incredible we even di
A person who takes great joy in reading, writing, or some other activity that can be done in prison might well prefer life in prison to execution. I might or might not agree with that person, but I wouldn't describe that person as utterly lacking in dignity.
The state should not have the right to take life.
Incarceration is within the bounds of human ethics of government. Murder is not. It never will, it never was. The state cannot legally take life.
--I will say when there is a practice where there is a question of whether it is a moral or not, and you find yourself in a peer group of China, North Korea and the Muslim world (and even Russia is a lighter shade); then that should be a pretty good indication what side of humanity you are on.
The state should not have the right to take life.
Incarceration is within the bounds of human ethics of government. Murder is not. It never will, it never was. The state cannot legally take life.
I don't believe you believe that.
I don't believe you deny circumstances can exist where soldiers or police are ethically allowed to take lives in order to fulfill their roles as officers of the state.
Meanwhile the point of my OP was derailed by a discussion as to whether death is worse than a life sentence. But the OP assumed it was worse, partly because it is irreversible and contended that the probability of innocence need only be a tiny number to escape execution even if it is too small to escape conviction. How can that not be correct?
all unjust punishment is irreversible, you can't give back stolen years either.
you can't reverse the time with your children stolen by the system, your wife leaving you, the prison rapes or violent crime you become the victim of in prison, your business failing because you are in jail and all other possible negative effects of unjust imprisonment either.
the irreversibility argument is just bogus
--I will say when there is a practice where there is a question of whether it is a moral or not, and you find yourself in a peer group of China, North Korea and the Muslim world (and even Russia is a lighter shade); then that should be a pretty good indication what side of humanity you are on.
Russia's shade is a bit of a joke. Yes, officially they have a moratorium on death sentences (they have death sentence on the books, but it is not officially carried out). However, in practice the regime has a long history of ordering or condoning attacks, assassinations and murders of political opposition, journalists, dissidents, undesirable ethnicies and prisoners of war.
all unjust punishment is irreversible, you can't give back stolen years either.
you can't reverse the time with your children stolen by the system, your wife leaving you, the prison rapes or violent crime you become the victim of in prison, your business failing because you are in jail and all other possible negative effects of unjust imprisonment either.
the irreversibility argument is just bogus
Cmon. You know what I meant. Reversible was the wrong word. Lessen the impact (sometimes to the point of fully making up for the unjust imprisonment) is what I should have said.
Cmon. You know what I meant. Reversible was the wrong word. Lessen the impact (sometimes to the point of fully making up for the unjust imprisonment) is what I should have said.
No you aren't the only person making this argument and the concept is that of irreversibility every time.
Again it doesn't apply in any form, there are people who spend their lives in jail as innocent and die there before their innocence can be proven right? or because innocence cannot be proven anymore for legal technicalities or whatever (lost appeal already, judges refuse to re-hear even with new proof and so on). It can happen anyway individually even for unjust imprisonment or in general even for law enforcement harassment.
Like you can end up innocent, having been out on bail so not even unjustly imprisoned, but you lost years fighting the law torturing you while innocent and you don't recoup those years and what goes astray in your life those years because of the state caused unjustice.
Innocent people will sometimes be damaged by the attempt to pursuit justice in all systems, there is nothing special about that with regards to the death penalty.
And if instead we think in terms of damages paid by the state to compensate the unjustice, those can go to heirs so they work for innocents getting the death penalty as well.
Russia's shade is a bit of a joke. Yes, officially they have a moratorium on death sentences (they have death sentence on the books, but it is not officially carried out). However, in practice the regime has a long history of ordering or condoning attacks, assassinations and murders of political opposition, journalists, dissidents, undesirable ethnicies and prisoners of war.
Fair enough. And that is on top of the gulags and now just sending convicts to Ukraine to die.
all unjust punishment is irreversible, you can't give back stolen years either.
you can't reverse the time with your children stolen by the system, your wife leaving you, the prison rapes or violent crime you become the victim of in prison, your business failing because you are in jail and all other possible negative effects of unjust imprisonment either.
the irreversibility argument is just bogus
The point is that if you sentence someone to 25-life and then later find out they are innocent, you can release them at some point. whereas once they are executed there is absolutely no way to undo the punishment. That’s what people mean by reversible.
The point is that if you sentence someone to 25-life and then later find out they are innocent, you can release them at some point. whereas once they are executed there is absolutely no way to undo the punishment. That’s what people mean by reversible.
Honest question... if you have to explain this in a conversation, why engage?
We don't have the death penalty because communism.
I wrote "swiftly executed" for a reason, the 15+ years waiting time is a monstrosity. People should be shot in their head in the appeal room 1 min after the judge denies the appeal.
When you speak in hyperbole.... constantly, it's amazing anyone in here takes you seriously, or engages.
I think it’s fair to try to hash out definitions in philosophical discussions. Reversible is kind of a normatively loaded term, so I can accept substituting it for the idea that we are trying to get at.
I do also have a problem with this idea of giving restitution to the family. I think that should be a last resort. When we think of civil restitution, we generally want to target it towards the party involved and not have some other party claim tort on their behalf, unless it is the only way for their estate to be made whole.
There are people that either don’t have family or they are completely estranged/on horrible terms with them. It doesn’t offer any kind of restitution to them just because their family gets money.
The state should not have the right to take life.
Incarceration is within the bounds of human ethics of government. Murder is not. It never will, it never was. The state cannot legally take life.
I think most generally recognized states that exist claim the right to take a life, or rather they have principles in place that state when it is justifiable to do so. This includes those who have abolished the death penalty.
Which probably is pedantic, but I think it is important to note that this is really a debate on when it is okay for a state to kill someone. If we are in the debate about whether it is ever okay for a state to kill someone, then we're more into the realm of voluntarism / libertarianism vs statism.
For example: If a man is threatening a hostage with a weapon, is it permissible to deploy tactical units where a member might be ordered to shoot that man? And it is important to remember that this scenario suffers the same criticism that the OP levies against the use death penalty: You are rarely, if ever, completely certain about the situation or the outcome.
Of course, this is scenario with a direct threat, which is different from punishment or penalty being doled out by the judicial system. So let's move on to that, and talk about imprisonment, a form of penalty / punishment what is widely accepted outside libertarianism / voluntarism.
In this thread there has been a general acceptance that incarceration is reversible. It really isn't. You can set a person free, but you can't give him / her back that portion of their life or remove their experiences. Yet we have very little debate on whether incarceration is permissible even though it is inevitable that we will jail innocent people. So the principle of not tolerating harsh consequences for innocent people does not really hold us back all that much, we're more drawing lines in the sand.
The point is that if you sentence someone to 25-life and then later find out they are innocent, you can release them at some point. whereas once they are executed there is absolutely no way to undo the punishment. That’s what people mean by reversible.
Yes and it's a logical and practical mistake to think the unjust imprisonment is reversible, because it isn't for the time spent unjustly in prison.
The fact that you can end the unjustice sometimes before you deliver the whole punishment doesn't make it reversible, it makes at most mistakes less costly, quantitatively, not qualitatively (if you believe that unjust imprisonment isn't worse than death ofc).
With conversion of life spent in jail = to life not availalbe (the 1:1 which is subjective, for me it's worse than death, for others can be better than death, doesn't matter anyway), if i sentence you to death with 40 years of life expectancy i am taking the 40 years.
If i unjustly imprison you and 10 years later you are found innocent , i took 10 years. it's 4:1 not infinite to 1, there is no qualitative difference, no specialty in the death penalty.
And as i say you completly fail to admit that you can die while unjustly imprisoned, every year you have a chance for that, and if that happens even under your silly definition of reversibility , it won't be reversible anymore.
In this thread there has been a general acceptance that incarceration is reversible. It really isn't. You can set a person free, but you can't give him / her back that portion of their life or remove their experiences. Yet we have very little debate on whether incarceration is permissible even though it is inevitable that we will jail innocent people.
Basically you are admitting that you know i am the only one using logic properly in this topic in this thread but it's very harsh for you to say so explicitly.
The "line in the sand" of reversibility in particular is completly faulty, yet it convinced a ton of people (not only here, it's the number 1 objection you always hear when discussing the death penalty).
But anyway yes, if you ever accept even a single case when the state can kill someone, you can never use the "ethically, the state can't kill" line *for anything*.
And yes if you ever accept that the state will necessarily damage innocents at times in the pursuit of justice, you can never use the "innocents will be damaged by this so it's unethical" line *for anything*.
The differences are quantitative not qualitative, and the purported moral superiority of those "refusing to kill" is completly made up.
Yes and it's a logical and practical mistake to think the unjust imprisonment is reversible, because it isn't for the time spent unjustly in prison.
The fact that you can end the unjustice sometimes before you deliver the whole punishment doesn't make it reversible, it makes at most mistakes less costly, quantitatively, not qualitatively (if you believe that unjust imprisonment isn't worse than death ofc).
With conversion of life spent in jail = to life not availalbe (the 1:1 which is subjective,
Society doesn’t operate off the psychological preferences of one man. The problem is you keep framing this argument back to what you would prefer psychologically which of course there is nothing to argue there. It’s tautologically true that you prefer being hung a week after you were unjustly convicted of murder.
Society doesn’t operate off the psychological preferences of one man. The problem is you keep framing this argument back to what you would prefer psychologically which of course there is nothing to argue there. It’s tautologically true that you prefer being hung a week after you were unjustly convicted of murder.
No, the argument that unjust imprisonment isn't reversible doesn't require you to agree with me about death being preferably than life in jail.
