Another question for those who are against the death penalty

[[censored]]

Hypothetical for who against society punishing out of revenge.

A new micro brain surgery has been developed. The affects of which are those who have committed a crime and then had the surgery no longer have the impulse to committ crime with 100% certainty. There are no side affects from said surgery other than not committing crimes.

A man is convicted of rapping 10 children. He undergoes the surgery and now with 100% certainty is no longer a danger to committ this or any other crime again. Should this man be imprisioned for any length of time?

Electing to have all members of society to undergo preemptive surgery is not an option.

[DVaut1]

I think this is a strong implied argument in [censored]'s post, which I've seen ignored by many on this board; that is, deterrence theory is limited in scope (I don't deny the deterrent effect of say, parking tickets; but what I am asserting is that the death penalty does little to deter future murders. I'm willing to listen to others who feel differently, however). [censored]’s question is a good one: even if we could guarantee deterrence would be successful, we would likely still want to exercise punishment.

Therefore, if we can concede that we can't justify punishment through deterrence only, we must turn to a retributive theory of justice. And I think there’s room in a legitimate retributive theory of justice for the death penalty.

I’m not claiming that I support the death penalty; it’s certainly applied imperfectly, and this creates a host of ethical problems (innocent people being put to death is one of these problems). But it’s shortsighted to claim that deterrence is the only legitimate theory of punishment.

We punish all the time with the purpose of retribution, with little concern for deterrance. [censored] is right to be skepitcal of claims that retributive punishment is inherently unjustified.

[nicky g]

If reasonable punishment could be shown to deter others from doing the same thing, yes he should still be punished. If not, I can't really see the point.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
If reasonable punishment could be shown to deter others from doing the same thing, yes he should still be punished. If not, I can't really see the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because people ought to (and do) possess a right to retributive justice.

[dr_venkman]

More than that people ought to be held responsible for their actions.

However the punishment should fit the crime. Raping 10 children sounds like a good reason to lock a person in a small box for about 60 years. Even if there were no next of kin or the children themselves didn't want to press charges. You do wrong you get punished. Not as a deterence but as a fact. After surgery they can organize some therapy for the convict, but he still has to pay his dues. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

On the other hand, smoking pot while watching a Phish concert isn't really a punishable offense in my world. But then again I'm a pretty tolerant when it comes to smoking a doobie now and then.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
You do wrong you get punished. Not as a deterence but as a fact. After surgery they can organize some therapy for the convict, but he still has to pay his dues

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.

[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand, smoking pot while watching a Phish concert isn't really a punishable offense in my world. But then again I'm a pretty tolerant when it comes to smoking a doobie now and then.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope I wasn't misunderstood. I think we can all agree the punishment should fit the crime. I'm not proposing locking up pot smokers, jaywalkers, poker players in home games, etc. We can certainly disagree about whether or not certain actions should be legal or not.

But I essentially agree your original point; if someone rapes 10 children, they deserve punishment not because we feel it prevents the perpetrator from committing the same crime again, or because we feel it would deter other would-be child rapists, but because the rapist deserves it.

[Bodhi]

I am against both the death penalty, and this surgery you speak of. Didn't you ever read "A Clockwork Orange?"

I also don't believe that you can eliminate 'criminal' instincts without also removing things like ambition and autonomy.

[Utah]

Interesting original question and interesting answer. So, if there is no danger and no deterent effect than he should not be locked up? What about the notions of justice and punishment? Do they have no weight?

[thatpfunk]

I'm thinking about this one. Very interesting.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
I am against both the death penalty, and this surgery you speak of. Didn't you ever read "A Clockwork Orange?"

I also don't believe that you can eliminate 'criminal' instincts without also removing things like ambition and autonomy.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is a hypothetical which dealt with your concerns.

[fluff]

If the only impact on me for commiting any heinous crime was a small surgical procedure with no side effects, what would prevent me from committing any crime I want a priori? The risk to reward ratio would be infinite.

On the other hand, life in prison or death penalty would be in my opinion equally unappealing, with life in prison perhaps more so.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
If the only impact on me for commiting any heinous crime was a small surgical procedure with no side effects, what would prevent me from committing any crime I want a priori? The risk to reward ratio would be infinite.

On the other hand, life in prison or death penalty would be in my opinion equally unappealing, with life in prison perhaps more so.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if this procedure was completely unknown to criminals until which time they were brough into the criminal system. That is to say that at the time criminals were making the risk/reward decision the risk of inprisonment or other was very real.

[fimbulwinter]

he should be imprisoned for the duration of his life and offered either solitary confinement or manual labor as options for his daily activities.

fim

ps- your hypothetical is not only physically impossible (which is fine for a hypothetical) but it really misses the point. there is no native brain feature or gene for crimes against children and crimes in general. they, especially molestations, are intensely influenced by the childhood experiences of the perpetrator.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Hypothetical for who against society punishing out of revenge.

A new micro brain surgery has been developed. The affects of which are those who have committed a crime and then had the surgery no longer have the impulse to committ crime with 100% certainty. There are no side affects from said surgery other than not committing crimes.

A man is convicted of rapping 10 children. He undergoes the surgery and now with 100% certainty is no longer a danger to committ this or any other crime again. Should this man be imprisioned for any length of time?

Electing to have all members of society to undergo preemptive surgery is not an option.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, he is no longer a threat to society. However, as a deterent, he probably should still "repay his debt to society" someway.

[fimbulwinter]

[ QUOTE ]
I am against both the death penalty, and this surgery you speak of. Didn't you ever read "A Clockwork Orange?"

I also don't believe that you can eliminate 'criminal' instincts without also removing things like ambition and autonomy.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is so bad it's funny.

fim

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
ps- your hypothetical is not only physically impossible (which is fine for a hypothetical) but it really misses the point. there is no native brain feature or gene for crimes against children and crimes in general. they, especially molestations, are intensely influenced by the childhood experiences of the perpetrator.

[/ QUOTE ]

IT'S A HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION! [censored] can't 'miss' the point of his own hypothetical question.

Also, whether or not sexual predators are the product of genetics or enviornmental factors is IRRELEVANT here.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
No, he is no longer a threat to society. However, as a deterent, he probably should still "repay his debt to society" someway.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you feel a perpetrator should 'repay his debt to society', that's not an argument in favor of deterrence, it's one in favor of retribution.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]

If you feel a perpetrator should 'repay his debt to society', that's not an argument in favor of deterrence, it's one in favor of retribution.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's deterence. Think about it harder. If he isn't a threat, why would we need a deterent?

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]


ps- your hypothetical is not only physically impossible (which is fine for a hypothetical) but it really misses the point. there is no native brain feature or gene for crimes against children and crimes in general. they, especially molestations, are intensely influenced by the childhood experiences of the perpetrator.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't miss the point because that had absolutely nothing to do with my question. I was only interested in the how much if any the concept of revenge or retribution was to people.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hypothetical for who against society punishing out of revenge.

A new micro brain surgery has been developed. The affects of which are those who have committed a crime and then had the surgery no longer have the impulse to committ crime with 100% certainty. There are no side affects from said surgery other than not committing crimes.

A man is convicted of rapping 10 children. He undergoes the surgery and now with 100% certainty is no longer a danger to committ this or any other crime again. Should this man be imprisioned for any length of time?

Electing to have all members of society to undergo preemptive surgery is not an option.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, he is no longer a threat to society. However, as a deterent, he probably should still "repay his debt to society" someway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wacki, would I be accurate in saying that in your opinion "retribution" has no place in the judicial system?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Wacki, would I be accurate in saying that in your opinion "retribution" has no place in the judicial system?

[/ QUOTE ]

Revenge???? Doesn't belong in the legal system.

Retribution???? Must exist in the legal system.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
No, it's deterence. Think about it harder. If he isn't a threat, why would we need a deterent?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm thinking hard, or at least the level sufficient for this. You said:

[ QUOTE ]
No, he is no longer a threat to society. However, as a deterent, he probably should still "repay his debt to society" someway.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're saying he should still pay his debt to society, you're not making an argument in favor of deterrence! You're saying he deserves some punishment, regardless of whether or not it prevents future crimes.

[ QUOTE ]
If he isn't a threat, why would we need a deterent?

[/ QUOTE ]

[censored] is not making a claim that he needs a deterrent! He's claiming the perpetrator needs to punished, not deterred.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wacki, would I be accurate in saying that in your opinion "retribution" has no place in the judicial system?

[/ QUOTE ]

Revenge???? Doesn't belong in the legal system.

Retribution???? Must exist in the legal system.

[/ QUOTE ]

In your opinion what are the differences?

I think that my above hypothetical would never be accepted by a society because on some level most believe that those who commit a crime against society should go through some level of penalty be it death, prison,or community work and that this has nothing at all to do with deterence or ensuring safety. In my hypothetical I believe society would take matters into their own hands and dole out punishment. Thus I believe that some level of revenge or retribution is vital in our judiciary system. I think this is the real reason most people support the death penalty. Would you agree?

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]

[censored] is not making a claim that he needs a deterrent! He's claiming the perpetrator needs to punished, not deterred.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is correct.

[Iplayboard]

Punishing an individual in this case is still using the idea of deterence. There are two levels of deterence. One is to deter the individual who committed the crime from committing a future crime. The hypothetical question eliminated this form of deterence.

The other kind is to deter other people from committing future crimes. In this case, I assume society would still want to punish the individual to limit future crimes committed by other people.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Revenge???? Doesn't belong in the legal system.
Retribution???? Must exist in the legal system.

[/ QUOTE ]

In your opinion what are the differences?


[/ QUOTE ]

As far the differences, there is some distinction to be made between the two. Revenge has a negative connotation; implied in the notion of revenge is the desire to cause pain out of spite, or sheer vindictiveness. Therefore, when we think of revenge, we think of a desire to hurt, and often, we don't see revenge as being justly deserved...

which is what seperates revenge from retribution. Even if retributive justice causes pain, it's justly deserved. So we can all agree that revenge and retribution might causes pain; but retribution is justified, whereas revenge typically isn't.

It's similar to the differences between murder and killing. Killings and murders both end life. But murders are not justifiable; killings could have legitimate purposes (like the killing in self defense; or the killing of livestock animals, for instance).

Revenge and retribution both cause pain; but revenge is typically unjustifiable, whereas retribution is just; and this is merely inherent in their defintions. When we say 'revenge', we really mean unjust vengeance. And when we say 'retribution', we really mean just recompense.

[lastchance]

If this existed, we wouldn't need a justice system. The entire point of the justice system is deterrence, not retribution or revenge. The justice system is to stop people from committing crimes for fear of retribution, and since we aren't psychic, it's the only defense we have.

Without it, we would have people stealing and killing left and right. That's why only civilizations with justice systems have lasted, because the justice system as deterrence is a necessity. Retribution and revenge exist because you need deterrance. They have no innate value except for giving other people fear of doing bad stuff.

That said, there might still be a need for deterence because without fear of jail or death, before they get this chip, they might be able to do all the crime they want.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Punishing an individual in this case is still using the idea of deterence. There are two levels of deterence. One is to deter the individual who committed the crime from committing a future crime. The hypothetical question eliminated this form of deterence.

The other kind is to deter other people from committing future crimes. In this case, I assume society would still want to punish the individual to limit future crimes committed by other people.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has been addressed here in previous posts, but regardless, just change the hypothetical situation and say that, in some hypothetical world, this perpetrator is the only criminal in the world. That is, besides this one rapist, we know with certainty that no other crime will ever be comitted in the future.

Knowing all this, we would still seek to punish the rapist, and it would be legitimate to do so.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
If this existed, we wouldn't need a justice system. The entire point of the justice system is deterrence, not retribution or revenge.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll repeat myself from a previous post, but again, imagine a hypothetical world where this child rapist is the only criminal in the world. I should hope that, even after the rapist's corrective brain surgery, he would be severely punished.

The justice system exists to deter, no doubt. But it also exists to extract retribution on guilty parties.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
The entire point of the justice system is deterrence, not retribution or revenge.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. IMO it is clear to me that one pupose of the judicial system is indeeed retribution. IMO this is just and moral.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[censored] is not making a claim that he needs a deterrent! He's claiming the perpetrator needs to punished, not deterred.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

You both completely missed what I was saying. For the second time, he's not a threat!!!!! So, the only good punishing him would give society is to deter oth people that think the chip isn't a big deal.

[ QUOTE ]
In your opinion what are the differences?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not my opinion, fact according to dictionary.

Revenge is a sweet candy for the wicked.

Retribution is just punishment with a just cause.

Huge difference. Jailing a man that is no longer a threat is revenge unless that punishment can serve a noble purpose. Deterrence of crimes commited by other people is one such purpose.

Ok, I have to go.. Bye.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
For the second time, he's not a threat!!!!! So, the only good punishing him would give society is to deter oth people that think the chip isn't a big deal.


[/ QUOTE ]

Deterring other criminals IS NOT the only good that would come from it. Another good is that the rapist would have to pay his debt to society, which is to say that the rapist would have to have some forcible action taken against him to balance the wrong that he committed.

[ QUOTE ]
Jailing a man that is no longer a threat is revenge unless that punishment can serve a noble purpose. Deterrence of crimes committed by other people is one such purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, jailing a man is not necessarily revenge, even if we see jail time as having no preventive value! Jail time can serve a very noble purpose; that is, as I said, it balances the wrong perpetrated by the rapist. Or as YOU (wacki) put it in a previous post, the criminal has to pay his debt to society. His debt is not to sit in a jail cell as a model for other would-be criminals to see and learn a lesson from; his debt is to be penalized for his wrongdoing.

[lastchance]

There's another important thing I believe you are missing. Retribution and revenge only exist because they are good at deterrance.

There is no value in retribution, there is a lot of value in deterrance. Why "should" you care if a rapist is punished? What effect does it have on you?

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
There's another important thing I believe you are missing. Retribution and revenge only exist because they are good at deterrance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those of us in favor of retributive justice did not miss this point. Retribution does not only exist because it produces a deterrent effect. Please read the other posts in this thread.

[ QUOTE ]
There is no value in retribution

[/ QUOTE ]
There's lots of value in retribution. Read the other posts in this thread.

[ QUOTE ]
Why "should" you care if a rapist is punished? What effect does it have on you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Read the other posts on this thread for an answer to this as well.

[LaggyLou]

I am not against "punishing" for revenge per se, but I will answer thsi question nonetheless:

[ QUOTE ]
A man is convicted of rapping 10 children. He undergoes the surgery and now with 100% certainty is no longer a danger to committ this or any other crime again. Should this man be imprisioned for any length of time?


[/ QUOTE ]

yes

[The Dude]

The correctional procedure you mention has no built-in deterrent, which is my only objection. I am strongly opposed to the death penalty, but if there's a way to "fix" sex predators, I'm definately for it. In fact, the vast majority of sex predators themselves would be for it. I have no need to see somebody "repay their debt" to society or anybody else. If someone is no longer a threat to commit a crime, then let them get on with their lives. (The only issue being deterring others from committing the same crime, but I think you're asking us to ignore that aspect.)

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
If someone is no longer a threat to commit a crime

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't be sure that someone will never be a threat again. I think that all child molesters should be locked up for life, for this reason. If there is even a 1% chance that they will reoffend, small as that may be, it is not worth risking the safety of children.

[The Dude]

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but in the given hypothetical situation the person is no longer a threat. If that's true then I see no reason to lock them up (other than deterring other potential criminals). I don't share the desire to see somebody "pay their debt" the way some others in this thread do.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but in the given hypothetical situation the person is no longer a threat. If that's true then I see no reason to lock them up (other than deterring other potential criminals). I don't share the desire to see somebody "pay their debt" the way some others in this thread do.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have pretty gotten to the heart of this question.

[Dead]

I think that deterrence is a motivator in some cases, but not in the case of child molestation. Rapists are not diseased imo, like child molesters are. I think that pedophilia is a mental disease and someone who has this disease can never be fully cured. Most of them should probably be locked up for life in mental hospitals instead of prisons.

[lastchance]

Again, missing the point.

Why do we feel a need to exact retribution? What is the EV of having retribution? Why is it a good thing?

Because it deters. Because Tit for Tat winz, early and often.

Without a need for deterrance, without a need to get the other guy to play A, retribution has no EV. It is useless. And imposing cruelty on others with no benefit to you is purely sadistic.

That said, this program would not in and of itself provide a deterrance for all the other people that haven't been caught yet. So some punishment may be required to scare off criminals in the open from going back and to encourage people to join this program.

Just LC's 2 cents.

[[censored]]

Let me ask you this, why should rape being illegal? I am being serious in that I think your answer here will help me explain my next point.

[lastchance]

Ah... Got it.

But maybe there's something more to the reason why rape is illegal. Some kind of survival/EV reasons besides our personal feelings.

So, should the family of a murder/rape victim be allowed to beat up the guy who did it? What's the difference between revenge and retribution? And what about legislating feelings?

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that pedophilia is a mental disease and someone who has this disease can never be fully cured.

[/ QUOTE ]
I could be wrong, but I think science pretty much agrees with you at this point.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]


So, should the family of a murder/rape victim be allowed to beat up the guy who did it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that in a sense yes they are entitled to some type of retribution but that as a society we have determined that the best way for this to happen is not through vigilantly
justice but an organized system of trials and structured punishments, which helps ensure some level of fairness for both the victom and perpetrator.

I also believe that absent a structured judicial system any society of mankind would still enact retribution against those who commit crimes against it regardless of the impact on deterence or public safety. I do not believe that retribution for the sole purpose is wholly immoral. Rather is depends on how it is conducted.


I disagree with those who say that retribution has no place in our judicial system. I infact believe that all such systems have always had this concept at its very core. I do not expect this opinion to shared by everyone.

I think this is the real unspoken reason of those who support the death penalty. I am not sure as to why this needs to be unspoken.

Because of this I also believe that the this is the strongest arguement against the death penalty (basically too harsh a retribution in a society which is capable of indefinent inprisonment) rather than arguements like cost or effects on deterence.

Your thoughts?

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that in a sense yes they are entitled to some type of retribution but that as a society we have determined that the best way for this to happen is not through vigilantly
justice but an organized system of trials and structured punishments, which helps ensure some level of fairness for both the victom and perpetrator.

I also believe that absent a structured judicial system any society of mankind would still enact retribution against those who commit crimes against it regardless of the impact on deterence or public safety. I do not believe that retribution for the sole purpose is wholly immoral. Rather is depends on how it is conducted.


I disagree with those who say that retribution has no place in our judicial system. I infact believe that all such systems have always had this concept at its very core. I do not expect this opinion to shared by everyone.

I think this is the real unspoken reason of those who support the death penalty. I am not sure as to why this needs to be unspoken.

Because of this I also believe that the this is the strongest arguement against the death penalty (basically too harsh a retribution in a society which is capable of indefinent inprisonment) rather than arguements like cost or effects on deterence.

Your thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're asking for my thoughts (I don't think you are), but I more or less agree with most of this, and you saved me from posting something similar.

[lastchance]

But this makes no sense. Why is retribution a good thing? All your statements are beliefs, like sometimes mine are. There's no fundamental argument behind it, no solid premise or logic. It's a religious or philosphical type of thing, and I absolutely hate those.

The better point you bring up is why we should punish rape, not why we should still enact retribution after that.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
It's a religious or philosphical type of thing, and I absolutely hate those.


[/ QUOTE ]

That is your choice to FEEL that way. These feelings of hate and your using it as basis for your opinion on how and why a society has a right to punish are no better than my feelings that a desire for retribution is both just and moral.

Do you believe there is some scientific code floating in the universe somewhere that dictates all of societies laws, codes and systems must be based on some strict logic that nullifies all human emotion?

BTW You do you think rape should illegal?

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
All your statements are beliefs, like sometimes mine are. There's no fundamental argument behind it, no solid premise or logic. It's a religious or philosphical type of thing, and I absolutely hate those.


[/ QUOTE ]

Group A represents 10% of a population. Group B represents 90%. If group B enslaves group A and forces them to work all of group A will have a higher standard of living. Fewer people will suffer, there will be less death, disease & poverty. The population will flourish and advance at levels vastly superior if group A in not enslaved. Therefore it is logical that group B should enslave A.

Do you agree that slavery is just? If not please provide the logical reason why? You may not use any religeouos or philosphical reasons in your arguement.

[lastchance]

My point of philosphy being useless is a philosphical standpoint of it's own, and so therefore hypocritical. So let me rephrase that.

You are using an underlying premise for your opinions that you simply cannot prove. The justice system is also designed for retribution and retribution is a good thing. I disagree, and you're going to have a hell of a time arguing for that.

And I don't believe in justice. I can't prove it, and there's no way to argue for it.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]

You are using an underlying premise for your opinions that you simply cannot prove.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not disagree.

Are you saying you only believe in things that can be logically proven in a scientific sense?

[lastchance]

No, I use assumptions all the time, like you are real, and I'm not talking to some computer, I'm talking to another human.

For the purposes of this discussion, I see no need to accept your assumption of retribution being a good thing. I also have proposed a reasonable alternate theory.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
No, I use assumptions all the time, like you are real, and I'm not talking to some computer, I'm talking to another human.

For the purposes of this discussion, I see no need to accept your assumption of retribution being a good thing. I also have proposed a reasonable alternate theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Got it. I do not think you should accept my assumption that is it a good thing either.

I can accept that people could see retribution as not a good thing. I just disgree when it is applied "justly" which in this case I define as fairly with weight given to both the victom and the one recieving the punishment.

How this relates to my view on the death penalty. I think the real arguement of whether or not we should have a death penalty lies at deciding whether it is "just." I do not think it is simply enough to show whether or not it deters crime or how much it costs because I do not believe this is why people support the death penalty. I also think a just and moral society can have a judicial system which gives some weight to retribution.

This of course does mean that someone who believes punishment for crimes should in part be based on retribution must support the death penalty. Rather it is simply enough for them to believe it is "unjust" with no burden of showing that it does not deter crime or is imperfect in use. The strongest arguement against the death penalty is the one which says a just society capable of protecting itself through other means should not execute its members. As someoe who supports the death penalty it is certainly the one which gives me the most pause.

Anyways you made good points through out the discussion.