Amendment 8 protects us against cruel and unusual punishments, as well as excessive fines ($500 for 15 mph over the speed limit, or $100,000 for copying a CD for example).
I think brainwashing falls under the catagory of unusual, but protections provided by this amendment (as well as other large sections of the constituion) are more or less ignored by modern goverment.
But what if the brainwashing is an alternative to the death sentence?
The death sentence, regardless of its effectiveness as a deterrent, is still useful as a means of removing permanently a danger to the species. Brainwashing and other forms of behavioral rehabilitiation provide a means by which otherwise defective products can be restored to a functional state.
And if you don't want to take the chance of such rehabilitation measures failing, then there is always the option of recycling.
While I find the US' death penalty system to be cumbersome and useless, I wholeheartedly support the death penalty as a method of deterring crime and eliminating dangerous elements.
"The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number." Assuming that the two highest priorities are survival followed by the pursuit of happiness, it's a simple choice to allow the suffering of the individual for the benefit or security of the whole. If the horrible, "inhumane", agonizing death of a single criminal prevents 100 more crimes through fear of a similar fate (it's unrealistic in our system, but you get the picture), isn't it worth the cost? Also, if an element is threatening or damaging to the whole, shouldn't it be eliminated? There is a point at which there is more to gain from terminating a thread rather than spending space, resources, and time to rehabilitate them.
You purposely end the life of an innocent person and there's 100% evidence against you, you should be executed in the courtroom. I prefer not to pay taxes to keep murderers alive and fed in the prison system.
Amendment 8 protects us against cruel and unusual punishments. . .
I've always had a problem with this construction. Is punishment supposed to be kind and normal?
The criminal law has four goals: Deterrence, Rehabilitation, Retribution, and Incapacitation. The death penalty may not be a deterrent, as some people argue, but it's a great incapicitator.
I've seen prosecutors run wild on defendants. I've seen judges who were basically an additional prosecutor sitting in a different chair. I've seen juries that were either insane, stupid, retarded, or all three at the same time. That's why I'm opposed to the death penalty. I don't have a problem with the sentence as such; who could deny that John Wayne Gacey needed to be taken out? I have what I believe are legitimate concerns that it's applied unreliably.
The criminal law has four goals: Deterrence, Rehabilitation, Retribution, and Incapacitation. The death penalty may not be a deterrent, as some people argue, but it's a great incapicitator.I firmly believe that the retribution aspect should not exist. If punishment does not lead to deterrence or rehabilitation, then incapacitation is the only option. Revenge is, in and of itself, a barbaric human instinct.
Incapacitation does not necessarily have to mean death: it simply means a removal of this dangerous element from society in order to prevent future harm. Perhaps medical research or psychological study would be better alternatives.
I 've seen prosecutors run wild on defendants. I've seen judges who were basically an additional prosecutor sitting in a different chair. I've seen juries that were either insane, stupid, retarded, or all three at the same time. That's why I'm opposed to the death penaltyYou've laid out my primary argument against the death penalty. The legal system works pretty well, but it's not perfect. As horrible as any punishment can be, some ammends can be made in the case of a mistake. Death, as yet, cannot be undone or ammended in any way.
First let me say I agree that there should be a death penalty. However I don't think it works as it is supposed to. I also don't think the problem is with the death penalty.
The problem has more to do with the American Legal system. And in my opinion, it boils down to two things: a) America is one of the few governments where a person is (officially) "Innocence until proven guilty" b) The law doesn't really apply to the majority of people (or that's the assumption).
Let's take A. In most countries a person has to defend their innocence. Now I'm not saying that there are flaws with that system as well (Most obvious is the whole easy to detain anyone for any reason), but it does enact a little more respect for the a law.
Think of our system this way: Side A) If you did a crime all you have to do is leave enough eevidence to put suspicion of your innocence into a jury and you can get away with it. Side You are accused of a crime you didn't commit. For the most part unless you are being framed, most of the evidence (if the cops are doing their jobs) will point not to you and the shroud of innocence goes your way to begin with.
Think of other systems this way: Side A) You did a crime. Now you have to PROVE you did not do it. Which unless you are a great criminal mastermind becomes much harder to do. Side You did not do the crime. Here it is obviously harder to win the case as you must prove your innocence not just place doubt into the jury. But once again unless you are being framed, most of the evidence found should not place you as the criminal. (Yes, yes I know this is an ideal sorta thing, but when arguing ideals, you must use ideals.)
Ok now lets take argument B: In germany people can drive as fast as they want on parts the Autobahn. The reason this is allowed? People actually get fined for doing things that will possibly caused accidents. Passing on the right, tailgating etc, all are fined offenses in germany. And more so, they are enforced. You get a bunch of tickets, and you will lose your license. This is the same with other crimes. Even simple laws in most other countries result in punishable fines or arrests. You rob that little lady in the park? You get caught and go to jail. Here in America you get a bunch of tickets or get in a bunch of accidents, you might lose your license, Maybe. And with our jump trigger happy lawyers (again, I know I'm generalizing the stereotype), you get to have a finger wagged at you as you are led out of the police station by a lawyer who just freed you form robbing that little lady in the park because there was no one around who could prove you stole the purse that was in your hands.
If people knew they were going to be treated as criminals and not just some random person, I think people would start to consider the consequence of their actions.
And for those that don't care about dying and kill people anyway... chances are you won't be able to rehabilitate them. And your two choices are either locking them up forever, or killing them. just my two cents. (edited for some spelling)
First let me say I agree that there should be a death penalty. However I don't think it works as it is supposed to. I also don't think the problem is with the death penalty.
The problem has more to do with the American Legal system. And in my opinion, it boils down to two things: a) America is one of the few governments where a person is (officially) "Innocence until proven guilty"
This comes from the English law, and is one of the greatest contributions of the English to the world, possibly eclipsed by Blackadder.
"Prove you didn't do it" is the motto of autocratic regimes all through time and space, on and off Earth. No less a mind than Horace Rumpole characterizes the presumption of innocence as the golden thread running through the tapestry of English justice.
b) The law doesn't really apply to the majority of people (or that's the assumption).,\
Whose assumption, yours? To the greatest extent in history, citizens in the majority of the western world are equally subject to the law. We have more work to do there, but have come a long way.
Let's take A. In most countries a person has to defend their innocence. Now I'm not saying that there are flaws with that system as well (Most obvious is the whole easy to detain anyone for any reason), but it does enact a little more respect for the a law.
First, I don't think this is true. The places where one has to defend their innocence tend to be such havens of freedom as China, Burma, the old Soviet Union, or the Islamic world (both our "friends" and "enemies"). These are not places I would choose to live, and they certainly do not have citizens who have more respect for the law. They tend to have less respect for the law: the leadership class does as they please, and the citizens work hard on figuring out how to get around the law.
Respect for the law is not automatically a good thing, anyway. Don't steal or murder: laws probably worthy of respect. Segregation, speech restrictions, restrictions on political activity, and more: laws probably to definintely not not worthy of respect; quite the opposite.
it's simply justice.How so? Is the death solely to minimize the cost to society of said individual's continued existence? Or is it for revenge? Think carefully.
The focus of the "justice" system first and foremost should be to mitigate and reverse harm as much as is possible. Second should be to pevent future harm as much as possible without unduly restricting the liberties of those who have not yet harmed.
By respect of the law I was referring to the "BIG" laws. ie. Murder since it is typically what relates to the subject at hand. (I can't think of a death under the death penalty was ever for shoplifting...) I have to admit my general comments regard the law as a whole stem from my own experience from those around me, and therefore my own prejudices. The assumption that most people don't think all laws apply come from my experience with most copyright laws. How many people do you know that download copyrighted material (not arguing the usefulness or "rightness" of that law, just the fact its a law) with the opinion that " Well that doesn't apply to me, it's my right to have it". This goes directly in the face of "the law". And although this is a smaller value of the greater law, it does effect the larger understand as well (again my own assumptions)
The items you listed in terms of law possibly not worthy of respect "segregation, speech restrictions, etc" don't apply. (Yes I know i used this above, but that was experience related not subject related) Or rather I should say in terms my discussion to the Death penalty. I was not implying that all laws are worthy of respect. Allot aren't. Overall I prefer and Agree that "until proven guilty" is a much much better system. But I was arguing specifically upon the fact of Death penalty, and therefore how it relates to our justice system. What I was arguing was that the death penalty in a place that promotes the "Guilty until proven Innocent" stance of justice performs a much better use of the death penalty than place, like America, where we are "Innocence until proven guilty".
If we want to discuss the justice system itself, I would have to change my argument. For instance if this thread had to do with government efficiency, I'd have to say a Monarchy tends to be the most effective form of government. If we instead were talking about effective governments then i've have to go with republics.
What I was arguing was that the death penalty in a place that promotes the "Guilty until proven Innocent" stance of justice performs a much better use of the death penalty than place, like America, where we are "Innocence until proven guilty".
I can't say that I agree with that statement.
By that I mean as a deterrent. If you lived in a place that its harder to prove your innocence I think people (and people in this case referring to those that actually commit the crime) would be more wary of the possibility of having a death penalty than a place that that they have a much better chance of being either let off or convicted of a lesser crime based on doubt of being guilty.
Does this make more sense or is there a different reason you disagree (or if its just a "I don't agree cause its my opinion" that's kewl too. Just wondering if there's a reason i missed or wasn't understanding)
By that I mean as a deterrent. If you lived in a place that its harder to prove your innocence I think people (and people in this case referring to those that actually commit the crime) would be more wary of the possibility of having a death penalty than a place that that they have a much better chance of being either let off or convicted of a lesser crime based on doubt of being guilty.
Does this make more sense or is there a different reason you disagree (or if its just a "I don't agree cause its my opinion" that's kewl too. Just wondering if there's a reason i missed or wasn't understanding)
If you have the death penalty in a society without presumed innocence, you would soon find yourself lacking citizens.
This is pretty basic middle school social studies stuff here. Think about it. Imagine if you had to prove you were innocent. I accuse you of starting that fire that happened last night. No, it doesn't matter if your prints are nowhere to be found at the scene. It doesn't matter that you live far away. I don't need any evidence to prove you did it whatsoever. If there is even the slightest possibility that you could have done it, you are guilty. Yeah, we really want to go around killing everybody who has even a slight chance of being actually guilty. That's a wonderful idea.
The death penalty (even in a presumed guilty law system) would still only apply to those that committed horrendous crimes, no? I agree that if it were to be applied to any person who committed a crime, that system would soon be citizen-less. I completely agree. My argument isn't that Guilty until proven innocent is a good system. Its a terrible system that breeds corruption and the like. My argument was that in this system, the person that is going to commit the crime would be more wary of doing so because of the punishment.
As for the accusing, I have to admit I hadn't thought of that side of the equation. I'm guessing it could go two ways. One is, as you state, people would accuse people of killing other people so they themselves will be killed under the Death penalty. One deterrent to this would make it only apply to multiple murders (which still could indeed fall under that same category). The other side could be that people could be afraid of accusing people frivolously for fear of others doing the same to them in retribution. In either case over time I believe without strong government, the system would fall under rather quickly.
But again, my argument was referring to one part of the system regarding the death penalty, not the whole. I know I'm not expressing myself correctly because it seems to make perfect sense in my head (either that or I'm completely wrong which is also entirely possible), but I guess it boils down to if you think whether or not a person will be more likely to commit a crime based on how likely they will be punished to a larger degree (not caught, that's a different issue).
Violent punishment as a deterrent produces a society of one-handed people. Ruling through fear is an unacceptable form of government. The ends -- having a (superficially) crime-free society, do not justify the means (human rights violations).
I think the part you don't understand is that it is ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE YOURSELF INNOCENT. If you don't presume innocence, then just about every single person in society will be guilty of every single crime.
Think about it. Let's say the convenience store in your neighborhood is robbed. How do you prove you didn't do it? You can't. It's nearly impossible. If there's a .00001% chance that you could have done it, you will go to jail.
Adding the death penalty to an already incredibly stupid system is just exponentially more stupid. Now not only are you finding just about every citizen guilty of just about every crime, but you're killing basically anyone who had a chance of committing a serious crime. Think about it, can you prove you aren't the mastermind behind 9/11? There's a chance you are. Can you prove you aren't? Nope. Time to die.
A real problem is that, even though people on a jury might say they agree that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty, they wonder why the defendant is being tried. Many jurors have a real problem imagining that the person in the defendant's chair didn't do something bad. If they're not guilty of something, why are they there in the first place?
"Violent punishment as a deterrent produces a society of one-handed people. Ruling through fear is an unacceptable form of government. The ends -- having a (superficially) crime-free society, do not justify the means (human rights violations)."
I'd have to disagree with you there, Jason. Crime-free is crime-free, superficial or not. A crime-free status is a huge plus to any society and benefits the vast majority of people. If achieving it means that a few people have to suffer, isn't it worth it?
I agree that "guilty until proven innocent" is a bad system. I'm just isolating one part of issue. And I think that is where I'm losing people in terms of my argument. If you had the death penalty there would indeed be less people in the world. However under this system (and I'm making the assumption for a closed system to simplify things)I would assume there would be less murders, as people would be afraid of having the death penalty possibly enforced. Less murders would mean less people that could be accused of murder. Therefore, if my logic is correct, the death penalty would be a deterrent for people to actually commit the crime in the first point. I am removing accusing people out of the equation. People who aren't going to murder people under our current system (or their own moral code) aren't going to have to be sway'd by some sort of deterrent. So, again ignoring accusing people (because I completely agree with you) the death penalty would more likely prevent people from killing others.
(p.s. If you guys want me to drop it I will, or if you want to continue the intellectual conversation I will. I've never really been in a forum before that actually had a whole thread for Flamewars. Kinda of nice to have a hot topic debate conversations where it doesn't degrade to "well... you're just ugly!!")
Therefore, if my logic is correct, the death penalty would be a deterrent for people to actually commit the crime in the first point. I am removing accusing people out of the equation. People who aren't going to murder people under our current system (or their own moral code) aren't going to have to be sway'd by some sort of deterrent. So, again ignoring accusing people (because i completely agree with you) the death penalty would more likely prevent people from killing others.
Unfortunately, there is no way to be 100% sure that you are convicting the correct person right now. Even if there is 1% chance of convicting the wrong man, would you still be in favor of killing that person? Are you willing to gamble with a person's life just so you send a "message"?
cosmicenema: Let's say a murderer suffers a horrendous, slow, and painful death. Crimes of passion aside, would anyone without ridiculous confidence even consier commiting a crime after being made aware of what awaits criminals? By killing one person, you're preventing many crimes. It would be an outrage to NOT do it.
I'm not arguing the morality behind the issue. I know for a fact that not everyone convicted will be guilty. I'm arguing the effectiveness as a deterrent based on people knowing "If you murder someone, you yourself are going to be killed".
cosmicenema: Let's say a murderer suffers a horrendous, slow, and painful death. Crimes of passion aside, would anyone without ridiculous confidence even consier commiting a crime after being made aware of what awaits criminals? By killing one person, you're preventing many crimes. It would be an outrage to NOT do it.
Comments
I think brainwashing falls under the catagory of unusual, but protections provided by this amendment (as well as other large sections of the constituion) are more or less ignored by modern goverment.
Freedom!
The death sentence, regardless of its effectiveness as a deterrent, is still useful as a means of removing permanently a danger to the species. Brainwashing and other forms of behavioral rehabilitiation provide a means by which otherwise defective products can be restored to a functional state.
And if you don't want to take the chance of such rehabilitation measures failing, then there is always the option of recycling.
"The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number." Assuming that the two highest priorities are survival followed by the pursuit of happiness, it's a simple choice to allow the suffering of the individual for the benefit or security of the whole. If the horrible, "inhumane", agonizing death of a single criminal prevents 100 more crimes through fear of a similar fate (it's unrealistic in our system, but you get the picture), isn't it worth the cost? Also, if an element is threatening or damaging to the whole, shouldn't it be eliminated? There is a point at which there is more to gain from terminating a thread rather than spending space, resources, and time to rehabilitate them.
Eye for Eye!
The criminal law has four goals: Deterrence, Rehabilitation, Retribution, and Incapacitation. The death penalty may not be a deterrent, as some people argue, but it's a great incapicitator.
I've seen prosecutors run wild on defendants. I've seen judges who were basically an additional prosecutor sitting in a different chair. I've seen juries that were either insane, stupid, retarded, or all three at the same time. That's why I'm opposed to the death penalty. I don't have a problem with the sentence as such; who could deny that John Wayne Gacey needed to be taken out? I have what I believe are legitimate concerns that it's applied unreliably.
Incapacitation does not necessarily have to mean death: it simply means a removal of this dangerous element from society in order to prevent future harm. Perhaps medical research or psychological study would be better alternatives.
I 've seen prosecutors run wild on defendants. I've seen judges who were basically an additional prosecutor sitting in a different chair. I've seen juries that were either insane, stupid, retarded, or all three at the same time. That's why I'm opposed to the death penaltyYou've laid out my primary argument against the death penalty. The legal system works pretty well, but it's not perfect. As horrible as any punishment can be, some ammends can be made in the case of a mistake. Death, as yet, cannot be undone or ammended in any way.
The problem has more to do with the American Legal system. And in my opinion, it boils down to two things:
a) America is one of the few governments where a person is (officially) "Innocence until proven guilty"
b) The law doesn't really apply to the majority of people (or that's the assumption).
Let's take A. In most countries a person has to defend their innocence. Now I'm not saying that there are flaws with that system as well (Most obvious is the whole easy to detain anyone for any reason), but it does enact a little more respect for the a law.
- Think of our system this way: Side A) If you did a crime all you have to do is leave enough eevidence to put suspicion of your innocence into a jury and you can get away with it. Side
You are accused of a crime you didn't commit. For the most part unless you are being framed, most of the evidence (if the cops are doing their jobs) will point not to you and the shroud of innocence goes your way to begin with.
- Think of other systems this way: Side A) You did a crime. Now you have to PROVE you did not do it. Which unless you are a great criminal mastermind becomes much harder to do. Side
You did not do the crime. Here it is obviously harder to win the case as you must prove your innocence not just place doubt into the jury. But once again unless you are being framed, most of the evidence found should not place you as the criminal. (Yes, yes I know this is an ideal sorta thing, but when arguing ideals, you must use ideals.)
Ok now lets take argument B: In germany people can drive as fast as they want on parts the Autobahn. The reason this is allowed? People actually get fined for doing things that will possibly caused accidents. Passing on the right, tailgating etc, all are fined offenses in germany. And more so, they are enforced. You get a bunch of tickets, and you will lose your license. This is the same with other crimes. Even simple laws in most other countries result in punishable fines or arrests. You rob that little lady in the park? You get caught and go to jail. Here in America you get a bunch of tickets or get in a bunch of accidents, you might lose your license, Maybe. And with our jump trigger happy lawyers (again, I know I'm generalizing the stereotype), you get to have a finger wagged at you as you are led out of the police station by a lawyer who just freed you form robbing that little lady in the park because there was no one around who could prove you stole the purse that was in your hands.If people knew they were going to be treated as criminals and not just some random person, I think people would start to consider the consequence of their actions.
And for those that don't care about dying and kill people anyway... chances are you won't be able to rehabilitate them. And your two choices are either locking them up forever, or killing them.
just my two cents.
(edited for some spelling)
"Prove you didn't do it" is the motto of autocratic regimes all through time and space, on and off Earth. No less a mind than Horace Rumpole characterizes the presumption of innocence as the golden thread running through the tapestry of English justice. Whose assumption, yours? To the greatest extent in history, citizens in the majority of the western world are equally subject to the law. We have more work to do there, but have come a long way. First, I don't think this is true. The places where one has to defend their innocence tend to be such havens of freedom as China, Burma, the old Soviet Union, or the Islamic world (both our "friends" and "enemies"). These are not places I would choose to live, and they certainly do not have citizens who have more respect for the law. They tend to have less respect for the law: the leadership class does as they please, and the citizens work hard on figuring out how to get around the law.
Respect for the law is not automatically a good thing, anyway. Don't steal or murder: laws probably worthy of respect. Segregation, speech restrictions, restrictions on political activity, and more: laws probably to definintely not not worthy of respect; quite the opposite.
The focus of the "justice" system first and foremost should be to mitigate and reverse harm as much as is possible. Second should be to pevent future harm as much as possible without unduly restricting the liberties of those who have not yet harmed.
The items you listed in terms of law possibly not worthy of respect "segregation, speech restrictions, etc" don't apply. (Yes I know i used this above, but that was experience related not subject related) Or rather I should say in terms my discussion to the Death penalty. I was not implying that all laws are worthy of respect. Allot aren't. Overall I prefer and Agree that "until proven guilty" is a much much better system. But I was arguing specifically upon the fact of Death penalty, and therefore how it relates to our justice system. What I was arguing was that the death penalty in a place that promotes the "Guilty until proven Innocent" stance of justice performs a much better use of the death penalty than place, like America, where we are "Innocence until proven guilty".
If we want to discuss the justice system itself, I would have to change my argument. For instance if this thread had to do with government efficiency, I'd have to say a Monarchy tends to be the most effective form of government. If we instead were talking about effective governments then i've have to go with republics.
I've started rambling so I'll stop now.
I can't say that I agree with that statement.
Does this make more sense or is there a different reason you disagree (or if its just a "I don't agree cause its my opinion" that's kewl too. Just wondering if there's a reason i missed or wasn't understanding)
This is pretty basic middle school social studies stuff here. Think about it. Imagine if you had to prove you were innocent. I accuse you of starting that fire that happened last night. No, it doesn't matter if your prints are nowhere to be found at the scene. It doesn't matter that you live far away. I don't need any evidence to prove you did it whatsoever. If there is even the slightest possibility that you could have done it, you are guilty. Yeah, we really want to go around killing everybody who has even a slight chance of being actually guilty. That's a wonderful idea.
As for the accusing, I have to admit I hadn't thought of that side of the equation. I'm guessing it could go two ways. One is, as you state, people would accuse people of killing other people so they themselves will be killed under the Death penalty. One deterrent to this would make it only apply to multiple murders (which still could indeed fall under that same category). The other side could be that people could be afraid of accusing people frivolously for fear of others doing the same to them in retribution. In either case over time I believe without strong government, the system would fall under rather quickly.
But again, my argument was referring to one part of the system regarding the death penalty, not the whole. I know I'm not expressing myself correctly because it seems to make perfect sense in my head (either that or I'm completely wrong which is also entirely possible), but I guess it boils down to if you think whether or not a person will be more likely to commit a crime based on how likely they will be punished to a larger degree (not caught, that's a different issue).
Thoughts?
Think about it. Let's say the convenience store in your neighborhood is robbed. How do you prove you didn't do it? You can't. It's nearly impossible. If there's a .00001% chance that you could have done it, you will go to jail.
Adding the death penalty to an already incredibly stupid system is just exponentially more stupid. Now not only are you finding just about every citizen guilty of just about every crime, but you're killing basically anyone who had a chance of committing a serious crime. Think about it, can you prove you aren't the mastermind behind 9/11? There's a chance you are. Can you prove you aren't? Nope. Time to die.
I'd have to disagree with you there, Jason. Crime-free is crime-free, superficial or not. A crime-free status is a huge plus to any society and benefits the vast majority of people. If achieving it means that a few people have to suffer, isn't it worth it?
(p.s. If you guys want me to drop it I will, or if you want to continue the intellectual conversation I will. I've never really been in a forum before that actually had a whole thread for Flamewars. Kinda of nice to have a hot topic debate conversations where it doesn't degrade to "well... you're just ugly!!")
What if we give them super powers? Many a bad Guys in movies starts out this way.