Hangmen used to test their ropes based on the weight of the “honoree” so the length would be right to break the neck, and not pop the head off. Standards have dropped.
You are leaving out the most important point, which is that we cannot be certain of meting out justice. In fact, the current estimate (sayeth research) is at least 4.1%. Killing one innocent person for every 24 murderers wouldn’t be an acceptable ratio to me if I did accept capital punishment, which I don’t.And prison is hardly a nice place to be, especially for those in for life. It is a brutal, dehumanizing, overcrowded place, thanks in part to the prison lobby. You may say that is how it should be, in which case they ARE being punished.But, as always, my concern is not their behavior, but ours. Equal action means equal morality. I don’t accept that.
I respect your more nuanced view here, but there are three points I dispute. First, the fundamental assumption that “retribution” is the appropriate act at all. Second, that committing a closely equivalent act — killing a murderer, for example — is the most appropriate form of retribution. Thirdly, and this is in many ways the most important, the logic here appears to be "the end [justice] justifies the means [capital punishment]. As I have said, it’s not about them, it is about us. You have added some subtlety to the idea of retribution, but fundamentally “an eye for an eye” is a primitive form of engagement, and while you note rightly that there is a difference between one reason and another for killing, you have not excluded the possibility that the appropriate retribution for a brutal killing-by-torture would be a state-sanctioned killing-by-torture. That, to me, is the flaw in retributivism — at its core it assumes state-sanctioned wrongful acts are somehow made right because of the person on whom they are committed and because they are done by the state. I can’t accept that.And that leaves out the point on which we agree — that you need a very high standard of certainty for any such cases. But in practice, you would also exclude a lot more executions than you may think.According to research, eyewitness testimony is largely worthless. Not only that, but there are real reasons to believe that even people like the so-called Boston Strangler (Salvi) was innocent of that crime — not other crimes, I hasten to add — because he had learned about it from the real guy and could pretend to more knowledge.It’s really not a risk I would be willing to take.
My fundamental assumption — and it IS an assumption — is that killing is bad, regardless of who does it; it is sometimes a lesser evil, as in the case of self-defense, but it is still an evil.Self-defense is also a justification for war — not in the case of Iraq, of course, despite what some claim — but WWII, for example. But you can make the case that war is, in fact, inherently immoral. Others have.But making that work for capital punishment takes some work. I would be willing to kill in my self-defense, for example, but capital punishment cannot be seen as self-defense after the fact. The claims that recidivism is high merely suggest you don’t let them go!And if we must continue with this barbaric practice, I absolutely agree with you that we need extremely high standards for applying it. 4.1% of US executions were of innocent people, by one recent estimate, and they thought it might be low. That is totally unacceptable.
kennethcwarren64 almost 10 years ago
Then that make you no better them the killer.
What you are calling for is revenge, not justice.
If somebody does something horrible, so we do something horrible to them, what does that make us, and how does it help the victim?
Dtroutma almost 10 years ago
Hangmen used to test their ropes based on the weight of the “honoree” so the length would be right to break the neck, and not pop the head off. Standards have dropped.
dzw3030 almost 10 years ago
i don’t know what they used for my last colonoscopy but it put me out like turning a switch. Maybe that’s what they should use first.
Motivemagus almost 10 years ago
I’m afraid I disagree. retributive justice merely means you are operating on the same level as the person committing the crime.Killing is killing.
Motivemagus almost 10 years ago
You are leaving out the most important point, which is that we cannot be certain of meting out justice. In fact, the current estimate (sayeth research) is at least 4.1%. Killing one innocent person for every 24 murderers wouldn’t be an acceptable ratio to me if I did accept capital punishment, which I don’t.And prison is hardly a nice place to be, especially for those in for life. It is a brutal, dehumanizing, overcrowded place, thanks in part to the prison lobby. You may say that is how it should be, in which case they ARE being punished.But, as always, my concern is not their behavior, but ours. Equal action means equal morality. I don’t accept that.
Motivemagus almost 10 years ago
I respect your more nuanced view here, but there are three points I dispute. First, the fundamental assumption that “retribution” is the appropriate act at all. Second, that committing a closely equivalent act — killing a murderer, for example — is the most appropriate form of retribution. Thirdly, and this is in many ways the most important, the logic here appears to be "the end [justice] justifies the means [capital punishment]. As I have said, it’s not about them, it is about us. You have added some subtlety to the idea of retribution, but fundamentally “an eye for an eye” is a primitive form of engagement, and while you note rightly that there is a difference between one reason and another for killing, you have not excluded the possibility that the appropriate retribution for a brutal killing-by-torture would be a state-sanctioned killing-by-torture. That, to me, is the flaw in retributivism — at its core it assumes state-sanctioned wrongful acts are somehow made right because of the person on whom they are committed and because they are done by the state. I can’t accept that.And that leaves out the point on which we agree — that you need a very high standard of certainty for any such cases. But in practice, you would also exclude a lot more executions than you may think.According to research, eyewitness testimony is largely worthless. Not only that, but there are real reasons to believe that even people like the so-called Boston Strangler (Salvi) was innocent of that crime — not other crimes, I hasten to add — because he had learned about it from the real guy and could pretend to more knowledge.It’s really not a risk I would be willing to take.
Motivemagus almost 10 years ago
My fundamental assumption — and it IS an assumption — is that killing is bad, regardless of who does it; it is sometimes a lesser evil, as in the case of self-defense, but it is still an evil.Self-defense is also a justification for war — not in the case of Iraq, of course, despite what some claim — but WWII, for example. But you can make the case that war is, in fact, inherently immoral. Others have.But making that work for capital punishment takes some work. I would be willing to kill in my self-defense, for example, but capital punishment cannot be seen as self-defense after the fact. The claims that recidivism is high merely suggest you don’t let them go!And if we must continue with this barbaric practice, I absolutely agree with you that we need extremely high standards for applying it. 4.1% of US executions were of innocent people, by one recent estimate, and they thought it might be low. That is totally unacceptable.
Motivemagus almost 10 years ago
Likewise, thanks for yours, and I agree!