What is Justice?

[redbaron]

I'm curious as to what people consider examples of justice.

In this thread: http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=16099

Several people identified justice as something they're passionate about, but to understand what exactly that entails I'd like to hear examples of situations where people feel as though, 'justice was served'.

 

[Hadoblado]

People achieving proportional to effort invested. Not having one's freedom infringed on.

 

[Absurdity]

To me it's always been a nebulous concept that I've never intuitively understood.

The most basic, mechanistic definition I suppose would be the efficient and disinterested execution of legal procedure.

The philosophical foundations of laws, however, seem alien to me. I remember learning about John Rawls in one of my courses and his idea of justice was something to the effect of: "If you stepped outside yourself and viewed the world through a 'veil of ignorance,' you would favor a more socioeconomically and politically equitable world because, were you to join it at a randomly assigned social status, you would have a decent chance of living a good life."

I am catastrophically oversimplifying his thought, but it was essentially something along those lines. Basically, behind the veil of ignorance, things like racism, sexism, elitism, etc., would disappear.

That thought experiment always seemed strange to me. You can't "step outside yourself" very easily. A libertarian would imagine an equitable society to be one in which property rights were absolute, whereas a staunch communist would imagine an equitable society to be one in which property rights were abolished. Rawls, as a liberal, imagines an equitable society to be a liberal democracy.

[Full disclosure, I've never actually read Rawls' books, just learned secondhand from lectures and articles. Apologies if I've bastardized his thought.]

I've recently been reading about natural law and natural rights, which I had previously discounted until I came across this extremely lucid article.

Conduct which violates natural law is conduct such that, if a man were to use individual unorganized violence to prevent such conduct, or, in the absence of orderly society, use individual unorganized violence to punish such conduct, then such violence would not indicate that the person using such violence, (violence in accord with natural law) is a danger to a reasonable man.

This seems like something I can intuitively appreciate a little more, but it still relies upon the "reasonable man" test.

In short, I have no idea what justice is. I doubt most people think very hard about the concept. It seems to be an emotive belief that individuals cling to because it makes them feel good and justifies their life choices.

 

[redbaron]

To me it's always been a nebulous concept that I've never intuitively understood.

Yes, mostly the reason I'm asking is to do with this. That there are people who identify justice as a passion, there must be something that they do understand. Unless:

I doubt most people think very hard about the concept: it seems to be an emotive belief that individuals cling to because it makes them feel good and justifies their life choices.

Which is the conclusion I came to as well. As well as that it seems like justice is almost interchangeable with vengeance in some people's minds.

That's why I'm asking for examples of what people consider, 'justice being served', so I have some way of gauging what it is that people consider actual justice.

Thanks for the post, it's good to hear an opinion from someone who has some similar views on the concept of justice.

 

[Nezaros]

Which is the conclusion I came to as well. As well as that it seems like justice is almost interchangeable with vengeance in some people's minds.

That seems to be the general consensus among the public, or at least those who originated and continue to uphold the modern justice system. If fines, prison, and death are forms of justice, justice seems to be an obsolete concept. "An eye for an eye" is "fair", but whether it is "right" is extremely subjective. If justice is meant to be blind it must be as objective as possible; thus the modern concept of justice is a paradox.

 

[SpaceYeti]

A League of Heroes. Superman and Batman are in it. They run a train on Wonder Woman and then kick Aquaman in the nuts.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I don't focus on justice so much as I'm concerned with injustice and morality.


I've expressed my moral confusions and ideas in several threads:

Spoiler

The ethics of being a good samaritan in modern society

What constitutes a "good deed", especially in the modern digital age? Are practical deeds of health and economic desperation worth more than non-dramatic deeds? How should one's charity be regulated, should it be regulated at all?


Fictional Media and Morality

What is the appropriate moral response to fictional obscenities? Are people who do not take issue with fictional obscenity immoral? Are people who do dangerously absorbed? Can the same be asked of "internet trolls" and people "who take the internet too seriously"?


What kind of Society do we live in...

Observations on the irony of society

The governmental idea of justice is pretty straightforward, but I would add that administrative powers are not perfect, they're only human and oftentimes justice is a matter of self-interest and negotiation. The point of justice is to maintain order and uphold certain values, but laws and customs become outdated over time, so they should occasionally be questioned and re-calibrated.

I don't consider punishment to be part of justice in itself because there's a point when it becomes self-indulgent animosity. For example, I don't support the death penalty as a consequence of breaking the law, and jailtime for personal possession of drugs is extreme; ideally I'd prefer harmful individuals be isolated from their society and unhealthy individuals rehabilitated(though this is a topic of its own).

On an individual / anarchistic level I suppose justice boils down to a personal sense of morality(or code of conduct) regarding people and situations. Acceptance of retribution as part of justice is expected.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Took a stranger to teach me to look into justice's pitiful eye, and to see an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth

 

[Brontosaurie]

logic

 

[Hawkeye]

logic

You mean logic smothered in morality.

Justice cannot exist without morality.

 

[Nezaros]

I don't consider punishment to be part of justice in itself because there's a point when it becomes self-indulgent animosity. For example, I don't support the death penalty as a consequence of breaking the law, and jailtime for personal possession of drugs is extreme; ideally I'd prefer harmful individuals be isolated from their society and unhealthy individuals rehabilitated(though this is a topic of its own).

In my mind justice should only serve to prevent crime from occurring; punishment is irrelevant. That means those harmful individuals should be removed from society, and I don't mean imprisoned. It's a waste of resources and if you're keeping them there for the rest of their lives, they may as well be killed off so there's no chance of escape or otherwise causing harm to anyone else.

 

[Duxwing]

In my mind justice should only serve to prevent crime from occurring; punishment is irrelevant. That means those harmful individuals should be removed from society, and I don't mean imprisoned. It's a waste of resources and if you're keeping them there for the rest of their lives, they may as well be killed off so there's no chance of escape or otherwise causing harm to anyone else.

Ehhh, there's one nagging problem with the death penalty: what if they're innocent? What if you kill the wrong person? It's worth the extra buck to keep them alive in case later evidence can exonerate them.

-Duxwing

 

[redbaron]

Ehhh, there's one nagging problem with the death penalty: what if they're innocent?

What's the problem exactly?

 

[SpaceYeti]

Ehhh, there's one nagging problem with the death penalty: what if they're innocent? What if you kill the wrong person? It's worth the extra buck to keep them alive in case later evidence can exonerate them.

-Duxwing

That's why I'm against the death penalty except for especially obvious fault or pleading guilty to a heinous crime, but still after a full investigation (or else someone who's suicidal or overzealous could cause the true criminal to go entirely unpunished).

 

[Duxwing]

What's the problem exactly?

One cannot raise the dead.

-Duxwing

 

[redbaron]

One cannot raise the dead.

So?

 

[Hawkeye]

What's the problem exactly?

If justice is being used in the context of what Duxwing is saying, then killing an innocent person does not balance the scales of justice.

The problem is that an innocent person has been punished to the point where it cannot be taken back.

 

[scorpiomover]

Fe.

 

[Duxwing]

So?

Inevitably, some innocent people will be executed and later found innocent, but, due to the permanence of death, they cannot be revived.

-Duxwing

 

[GodOfOrder]

Plato anyone?

 

[scorpiomover]

Ehhh, there's one nagging problem with the death penalty: what if they're innocent? What if you kill the wrong person? It's worth the extra buck to keep them alive in case later evidence can exonerate them.

Yes. But what if it's the Guildford Four we're talking about? Can you give them back the years they lost?

What about all those women who were convicted of killing their own child, on the testiony of Sir Roy Meadow? Can you give them back their lives? Can you undo the harm done to them because their other children were taken away from them? Can you undo the pain of blaming them for killing their own child, when they were already going through the most painful trauma that almost anyone can experience?

What about all those people who were accused of paedophilia, and let go due to their innocence, but were still hounded by people anyway?

What about all those people accused of rape, let go, and then had their house fire-bombed?

What about all those innocent guys in prison who got beaten up and gang-raped on a regular basis?

Seems like there are a LOT of things that you can't undo, that happen to innocent people, because of the justice system, even without the death penalty.

Removing the death penalty only removes the most obvious and least painful of them. The rest of those people have to live with what happened to them, for the rest of their lives.

 

[Hawkeye]

Yes. But what if it's the Guildford Four we're talking about? Can you give them back the years they lost?

What about all those women who were convicted of killing their own child, on the testiony of Sir Roy Meadow? Can you give them back their lives? Can you undo the harm done to them because their other children were taken away from them? Can you undo the pain of blaming them for killing their own child, when they were already going through the most painful trauma that almost anyone can experience?

What about all those people who were accused of paedophilia, and let go due to their innocence, but were still hounded by people anyway?

What about all those people accused of rape, let go, and then had their house fire-bombed?

What about all those innocent guys in prison who got beaten up and gang-raped on a regular basis?

Seems like there are a LOT of things that you can't undo, that happen to innocent people, because of the justice system, even without the death penalty.

Removing the death penalty only removes the most obvious and least painful of them. The rest of those people have to live with what happened to them, for the rest of their lives.

A loss of years does not equate to a loss of life.

 

[Duxwing]

Yes. But what if it's the Guildford Four we're talking about? Can you give them back the years they lost?

What about all those women who were convicted of killing their own child, on the testiony of Sir Roy Meadow? Can you give them back their lives? Can you undo the harm done to them because their other children were taken away from them? Can you undo the pain of blaming them for killing their own child, when they were already going through the most painful trauma that almost anyone can experience?

What about all those people who were accused of paedophilia, and let go due to their innocence, but were still hounded by people anyway?

What about all those people accused of rape, let go, and then had their house fire-bombed?

What about all those innocent guys in prison who got beaten up and gang-raped on a regular basis?

Seems like there are a LOT of things that you can't undo, that happen to innocent people, because of the justice system, even without the death penalty.

Removing the death penalty only removes the most obvious and least painful of them. The rest of those people have to live with what happened to them, for the rest of their lives.

And did I ever say that the death penalty is the only problem? No. In fact, I agree that convicted people shouldn't be subject to extrajudicial punishment by their peers.

-Duxwing

 

[Chad]

Yes. But what if it's the Guildford Four we're talking about? Can you give them back the years they lost?

What about all those women who were convicted of killing their own child, on the testiony of Sir Roy Meadow? Can you give them back their lives? Can you undo the harm done to them because their other children were taken away from them? Can you undo the pain of blaming them for killing their own child, when they were already going through the most painful trauma that almost anyone can experience?

What about all those people who were accused of paedophilia, and let go due to their innocence, but were still hounded by people anyway?

What about all those people accused of rape, let go, and then had their house fire-bombed?

What about all those innocent guys in prison who got beaten up and gang-raped on a regular basis?

Seems like there are a LOT of things that you can't undo, that happen to innocent people, because of the justice system, even without the death penalty.

Removing the death penalty only removes the most obvious and least painful of them. The rest of those people have to live with what happened to them, for the rest of their lives.

I am sure most of these people would prefer to not be dead. That generally the default preference to human (excluding the suicidal and the mentally disturbed). This along with the fact that dead people can't talk is the reason I don't support the death penalty. People who have committed crimes are generally the best at understanding what causes people to do unlawful things. Therefore, even guilty criminals take away your known research pool.

That and economically it cheaper to keep someone is prison then to give them the necessary repile process needed to give them even the slightest chance to prove there innocence and save there life.

Therefore kill more innocent people or allow guilty people to live the rest of there life is prison. I am however sportive of a much harsher prison system then the one currently being used in the US today. Prison should be hell on earth in my opinion.

 

[scorpiomover]

And did I ever say that the death penalty is the only problem? No. In fact, I agree that convicted people shouldn't be subject to extrajudicial punishment by their peers.

Priorities. No INTP can solve every problem at the same time. So some harm will always remain temporarily. The more harm an issue causes to more people, the more overall harm results. Thus, a lack of proper prioritisation, leads to many more suffering much more than necessary. Thus, one of the most important principles of morality, is getting one's priorities right.

So, before one can confidently say that removing the death penalty is the appropriate action, one has to first prove that it's the action that results in the least harm. As it only affects those on Death Row, which aren't that many, while millions are affected by the prison system, it's not as big a harm.

But, the existence of the death penalty, is an open slap in the face of liberals. It awakens them to the fact that they can't avoid the hard choices in life. So it's one of their most uncomfortable truths, and so they avoid it the most, by the majority of liberals voting for politicians who would stop the death penalty. Politicians suffer from career extinction if they don't get voted back in. So it becomes an evolutionary pressure.

In my country, and in the rest of the EU, we've already given in.

Point is, that the issue is not so easy as we'd like to believe it is.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

In my mind justice should only serve to prevent crime from occurring; punishment is irrelevant. That means those harmful individuals should be removed from society, and I don't mean imprisoned. It's a waste of resources and if you're keeping them there for the rest of their lives, they may as well be killed off so there's no chance of escape or otherwise causing harm to anyone else.

Duxwing already pointed out the problem of wrongful convictions, which supports the idea that the administration of justice isn't perfect. Life without parole isn't a waste of resources in the sense that imprisonment is a form of exile; sure serious convicts could just be killed off to save the trouble but there is an assumed value of human life in modern society (which the U.S. judicial system continues to hypocritically contradict).

If there was a another form of exile that protected lawful and moral citizens, didn't cost the state/taxpayers as much, and also could rehabilitate and integrate the exiled back into society, the death penalty would be unnecessary. As long as human life is still valued the focus should be on improving the criminal justice system, especially the handling of prisoners in the case of mental health and recidivism.


p.s. I'm not sure how related it is but just as I believe humans have a legal right to life, I believe there should be a legal right to death(assisted suicide/euthanasia).

 

[Proletar]

Justice has the closest relations to truthfulness and equality, I would say.

Injustice is basically when someone exceeds these lines. If you make someone do something by giving them expections of a better result/situation for themselves than what will actually be, then you are treating them unjustly by not being truthful. If you make them do something by force, then you are treating them unjustly by treating them unequally.


A default for justice would be to treat people the same way that you yourself would want to be treated. Unless, of course, you are a machokistic self-hating nut that's into rape-plays and being assaulted at random.

 

[Duxwing]

Priorities. No INTP can solve every problem at the same time. So some harm will always remain temporarily. The more harm an issue causes to more people, the more overall harm results. Thus, a lack of proper prioritisation, leads to many more suffering much more than necessary. Thus, one of the most important principles of morality, is getting one's priorities right.

And how does this relate to the matter at hand?

So, before one can confidently say that removing the death penalty is the appropriate action, one has to first prove that it's the action that results in the least harm.

And what is the downside to removing it? A minor reduction in deterrence?

As it only affects those on Death Row, which aren't that many, while millions are affected by the prison system, it's not as big a harm.

Who may very well be innocent. One cannot undo an execution if later evidence exonerates the dead party. And how is the prison system relevant, here? If you're trying to appeal to 'the greater harm,' then you've committed a logical fallacy, and if you're trying to say that millions of people are convicted of murder and would therefore flood the system if imprisoned, then your data are wrong.

But, the existence of the death penalty, is an open slap in the face of liberals. It awakens them to the fact that they can't avoid the hard choices in life. So it's one of their most uncomfortable truths, and so they avoid it the most, by the majority of liberals voting for politicians who would stop the death penalty. Politicians suffer from career extinction if they don't get voted back in. So it becomes an evolutionary pressure.

In my country, and in the rest of the EU, we've already given in.

Argumentum ad-hominem and Begging the Question. Who cares how the people on either side of the point feel?

Point is, that the issue is not so easy as we'd like to believe it is.

Your arguments do not support your thesis. Your first paragraph isn't really relevant (unless we're building our moral system up from nihilism) your second paragraph is full of logical holes, and your third paragraph is based upon the assumption that the death penalty is a good idea and argues against the people involved.

-Duxwing

 

[Brontosaurie]

You mean logic smothered in morality.

Justice cannot exist without morality.

logic should inform morality

morality is, strictly speaking, well-adjusted habits

the construct associated with morality - our ordinary conception of morality - is metaphysical nonsense, but morality itself is real

what is right and what is wrong relative to the common goal of human prosperity can be approximated scientifically

 

[Absurdity]

logic should inform morality

morality is, strictly speaking, well-adjusted habits

the construct associated with morality - our ordinary conception of morality - is metaphysical nonsense, but morality itself is real

what is right and what is wrong relative to the common goal of human prosperity can be approximated scientifically

Like what, being housebroken?

 

[Brontosaurie]

Like what, being housebroken?

not sure i follow.

 

[Chad]

And what is the downside to removing it? A minor reduction in deterrence?

I Agree with you don't take this as an argument I just wish to correct this statement because Its one that I have personally studied.

Statistically speaking states and countries that have outlawed the death penalty have all seen signification 1 to 2% drops in violent (death penalty related crimes). Such as Murder and Rape.

This is due to the a known psychological effect in humans. Murders feel more justified in killing when murder is allowed by the state.

Every time a person as been put to death in Florida and Texas in the last 20 or 30 years (I researched this in college about 5 years ago maybe) The there has been at least 3 murders in the town with-in 24 hours after the execution.

Arguing for the death penalty based off deterrent or expense. Is like saying you should put open food under your house to decrease a pest problem. Your really just making it worse not better for yourself.

 

[TheScornedReflex]

What is justice?

A bullshit concept created to make ones retaliation seem morally acceptable. A crime to justify another crime.

I'm to angry for this. *back hands laptop off desk*

 

[Duxwing]

I Agree with you don't take this as an argument I just wish to correct this statement because Its one that I have personally studied.

Statistically speaking states and countries that have outlawed the death penalty have all seen signification 1 to 2% drops in violent (death penalty related crimes). Such as Murder and Rape.

This is due to the a known psychological effect in humans. Murders feel more justified in killing when murder is allowed by the state.

Every time a person as been put to death in Florida and Texas in the last 20 or 30 years (I researched this in college about 5 years ago maybe) The there has been at least 3 murders in the town with-in 24 hours after the execution.

Arguing for the death penalty based off deterrent or expense. Is like saying you should put open food under your house to decrease a pest problem. Your really just making it worse not better for yourself.

Oh, wow! I never knew about this. Thanks!

-Duxwing

 

[Proletar]

What is justice?

A bullshit concept created to make ones retaliation seem morally acceptable. A crime to justify another crime.

I'm to angry for this. *back hands laptop of desk*

Believing in justice is mostly about not being a douche yourself.

 

[Absurdity]

I Agree with you don't take this as an argument I just wish to correct this statement because Its one that I have personally studied.

Statistically speaking states and countries that have outlawed the death penalty have all seen signification 1 to 2% drops in violent (death penalty related crimes). Such as Murder and Rape.

This is due to the a known psychological effect in humans. Murders feel more justified in killing when murder is allowed by the state.

Every time a person as been put to death in Florida and Texas in the last 20 or 30 years (I researched this in college about 5 years ago maybe) The there has been at least 3 murders in the town with-in 24 hours after the execution.

Arguing for the death penalty based off deterrent or expense. Is like saying you should put open food under your house to decrease a pest problem. Your really just making it worse not better for yourself.

Unless we're just not killing enough. Singapore has one of the highest rates of execution per capita in the world (and not just for violent crimes, drug trafficking and others as well). Singapore also has one of the lowest incidences of violent crime on the planet, with a firearm homicide rate of 0.02 per 100k, and a non-firearm homicide rate of 0.09 per 100k. Source.

 

[Hawkeye]

Justice = Acceptable revenge.

 

[redbaron]

Inevitably, some innocent people will be executed and later found innocent, but, due to the permanence of death, they cannot be revived.

Yeah I know the hypothetical situation you're proposing, but I still don't see the problem.

Point I'm making is that you're assuming a level of morality/justice that may or may not be shared by others. Suppose some people would prefer the system was more like that of Singapore? With more executions?

To them the problem is that if anything, not enough people are executed, and thinking like yours is detrimental to the death penalty's overall effectiveness.

 

[Chad]

Still not seeing the problem.

The problem is I could frame you for murder and get away with it. You would die and no one would look into it any farther.

I would go Scott free know full well that some insensitive bastard just took the fall for me.

 

[Duxwing]

Still not seeing the problem.

And isn't the execution of innocent people counterproductive to the aims of any given judicial system?

-Duxwing

 

[redbaron]

And isn't the execution of innocent people counterproductive to the aims of any given judicial system?

I would say that this is an issue would be better resolved by addressing flaws in the system of legal proceedings, more-so than capital punishment itself.

Just to clarify, I can see your problem - I'm just recognizing that it's born of your own moral values, and addressing the issue by simply removing capital punishment is a response of that fashion - 'this is wrong and shouldn't happen'.

As opposed to identifying the root cause, which is the legal persecution of the innocent.

 

[Hawkeye]

I would say that this is an issue would be better resolved by addressing flaws in the system of legal proceedings, more-so than capital punishment itself.

Just to clarify, I can see your problem - I'm just recognizing that it's born of your own moral values, and addressing the issue by simply removing capital punishment is a response of that fashion - 'this is wrong and shouldn't happen'.

As opposed to identifying the root cause, which is the legal persecution of the innocent.

So basically you lied when you didn't see the problem. Nice... (I see the irony in this btw )

You do realise there are crimes where the real criminal cannot be truly known?

Therefore, the death penalty could never attain 100% true criminal success rate.

 

[Duxwing]

I would say that this is an issue would be better resolved by addressing flaws in the system of legal proceedings, more-so than capital punishment itself.

Just to clarify, I can see your problem - I'm just recognizing that it's born of your own moral values, and addressing the issue by simply removing capital punishment is a response of that fashion - 'this is wrong and shouldn't happen'.

As opposed to identifying the root cause, which is the legal persecution of the innocent.

I was arguing on the assumption that such is inevitable. Am I wrong in so assuming?

-Duxwing

 

[redbaron]

So basically you lied when you didn't see the problem.

Not really. I can see why Duxwing has a problem, but I can't personally see one.

I am glad you see the irony

You do realise there are crimes where the real criminal cannot be truly known?

Therefore, the death penalty could never attain 100% true criminal prosecution success rate.

I agree. Which is why I think it's a waste of time arguing about the outcomes of the legal system (punishment) and to spend more time investigating and improving legal proceedings.

There's a lot of room for improvement in the way both Adversarial (USA) and Inquisitorial (e.g. Germany) judiciaries are implemented.

There are flaws in both that can be limited and eliminated with the right resources, as well as benefits to both.

Essentially it is an issue of knowledge and resources. Not many people know the ins and outs of an Adversarial vs. Inquisitorial judiciary system (or any judiciary system for that matter) and so they focus on outcomes, creating lengthy and pointless debates on 'capital punishment vs. no capital punishment.

Then secondly, often there's not enough resources (time, money, manpower etc.) to actually make real reforms to a system.

This is not really in anyone's power, but I think if people want to see a change in either of these things, this is the avenue they need to take. Either educate themselves on the ins and outs of a legal system, or help direct resources to the places where its needed most.

Or at the very least, stop encouraging all these banal arguments over outcomes.

Realistically, we need to ask why these things happen, and investigate. Though without an understanding of the system, that's impossible. Herein lies the problem (and one of the biggest problems with an adversarial system), that people simply aren't educated about the issue.

Essentially capital punishment's existence or not is inconsequential to the success of a judicial system. The issue is a distraction from other plausible ways of improving the judiciary.

So basically what I'm saying is that if you're arguing for removing or retaining capital punishment, you're making a moral argument. I'm fine with people doing so on that basis. Just don't go around acting as though it's going to solve all of the other issues within the judiciary. Some are inherent in the system and can only be limited, some can be removed entirely with the right systems.

Essentially you have a leaking oil tank, and instead of fixing the hole, you're putting a towel under the car to soak up the oil. All this does is stop the ground getting dirty, but that's not really addressing anything relevant is it? Similarly, removing capital punishment might stop people's sensibilities being insulted, but it doesn't improve anything.

 

[Hawkeye]

Not really. I can see why Duxwing has a problem, but I can't personally see one.

Meh, you're arguing semantics.

 

[Nezaros]

Ehhh, there's one nagging problem with the death penalty: what if they're innocent? What if you kill the wrong person? It's worth the extra buck to keep them alive in case later evidence can exonerate them.

-Duxwing

Death should only be reserved for people who are a threat to society. Guilt or innocence is irrelevant.

 

[Hawkeye]

Death should only be reserved for people who are a threat to society. Guilt or innocence is irrelevant.

That makes no sense as if they are innocent, they are not the threat.

 

[Duxwing]

Death should only be reserved for people who are a threat to society. Guilt or innocence is irrelevant.

They would be guilty or innocent of being a danger to society, so guilt and innocence are still germane.

-Duxwing

 

[scorpiomover]

And how does this relate to the matter at hand?

Logic. Bentham's Utilitarianism suggests that one attempt to do the least harm to the least number of people. Ideally, we might be able to do no harm. But sometimes, like at the moment, harm seems to happen no matter what, and then we have to choose between the options we know now, to avoid as much harm as we can now, while we develop better solutions in the fullness of time.

And what is the downside to removing it? A minor reduction in deterrence?

If that's all it will cause, then yes. But how do you actually know how much of a reduction it will cause? You want to guess, and hope it works? Is that being logical? Provide a solid argument, and cross-check by the available data for every relevant case.

Who may very well be innocent. One cannot undo an execution if later evidence exonerates the dead party.

No. You really can't. All courts do at the moment, is award them some money. How would you like to get a million dollars for spending the next 5 years in prison? I doubt you would.

And how is the prison system relevant, here? If you're trying to appeal to 'the greater harm,' then you've committed a logical fallacy,

Never heard of Consequentialism and Utilitarianism?

and if you're trying to say that millions of people are convicted of murder and would therefore flood the system if imprisoned, then your data are wrong.

I wasn't. I was saying, that right now, millions are in prison for crimes whose details exclude death row, and for many, it would have been easier for them if they'd done those crimes, and also for others who never did that or any other crime. There is a huge motive in many situations for murder. There is also a large deterrant for doing murder on any one day. Diminish the deterrant, and you diminish it for not just those on death row, but for everyone, for every day. Statistically, you increase the chances by 300 million for the USA alone, and for every subsequent day. This raises the average yearly death rate.

With those types of numbers, the deterrant would have to be below 1 in 1 billion, for it to not cause at least one more murder a year. To be below 1 in 1 billion, would mean that only 1 in a billion murderers would avoid killing to escape the possibility of the death penalty. That's awfully low for such a high cost in people's perceptions.

Besides, that is linked to the value that one places in life, that is one of the axioms for abolishing the death penalty in the first place. Lower the value on individuals not getting the death penalty, and you lower the value for banning it in the legislature.

Argumentum ad-hominem and Begging the Question. Who cares how the people on either side of the point feel?

It's important data. There are lots of situations when we get data from the other side, that with it, we get an accurate answer, and if we ignore it, we get an inaccurate answer, or even a very wrong answer. The consequences are often if one makes beneficial or harmful choices in one's life.

Your arguments do not support your thesis. Your first paragraph isn't really relevant (unless we're building our moral system up from nihilism) your second paragraph is full of logical holes, and your third paragraph is based upon the assumption that the death penalty is a good idea and argues against the people involved.

Wrong on all counts. I never said that the death penalty was a good idea. I wasn't even suggesting that it's better to keep it.

I was pointing out that it seems that when it comes to the issue, it's sophisticated and complex, and requires much consideration, before deciding, and so even those that might want to keep it, have enough of a basis to form an opinion, even if they've not checked the figures completely.

I also didn't point this out. But, while we are here: Since these people have enough to form an opinion, dismissing their opinions, will just give them the impression that people who are against the death penalty are not interested in reason or helping to diminish harm, and then many will oppose the ban, in the belief that they are fighting an unjustified and irrational law, that would increase murder. You can't expect people to not want to keep fighting that, until they get their way. They'll never get tired. They can't. Morals don't get tired. So they'll keep fighting, no matter what. If some leave, then others will join. If you want all these conflicts in your country to cease, then you're gonna have to learn to make these people think that you ARE taking them seriously. It's your choice what you want out of life.

 

[scorpiomover]

I Agree with you don't take this as an argument I just wish to correct this statement because Its one that I have personally studied.

Statistically speaking states and countries that have outlawed the death penalty have all seen signification 1 to 2% drops in violent (death penalty related crimes). Such as Murder and Rape.

This is due to the a known psychological effect in humans. Murders feel more justified in killing when murder is allowed by the state.

Every time a person as been put to death in Florida and Texas in the last 20 or 30 years (I researched this in college about 5 years ago maybe) The there has been at least 3 murders in the town with-in 24 hours after the execution.

Arguing for the death penalty based off deterrent or expense. Is like saying you should put open food under your house to decrease a pest problem. Your really just making it worse not better for yourself.

Now THAT, is how Duxwing should argue!

I'm not sure of it entirely. I have to look up much wider figures, and think about if there is a proper cause and effect. But at least that does seem to suggest a correlation.