|
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
I can understand why you're not comfortable with the idea of state-sponsored killing, especially when it reeks of bloodthirsty vengeance. The main reason I would support the death penalty under those conditions is that I am not fond of the alternatives, particularly imprisonment. |
That's pretty much it, I don't know if I like the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" philosophy that seems to undermine the death penalty as practised in the US at the moment. I think I can see where this is going, I'm going to be in support of imprisonment (albeit managed differently to how it is now, as I think that the prison system in the US, and Australia for that matter, currently has some serious flaws), whilst you're going to argue that the prison system really doesn't work.
| quote: | | When someone is imprisoned, they become a burden to society - they consume resources but contribute nothing in return. If the person can be rehabilitated, then perhaps this investment is worth it. However, if we are imprisoning them for purely punitive reasons, or if there is no chance for rehabilitation, then it accomplishes nothing. |
I agree with your premise, as it stands they do contribute nothing. I would argue that we can rectify this. If the primary function of the prison system is to rehabilitate rather than punish, then surely investing in a prisoner by equipping them with the skills necessary to get a job once they're released is a good thing? Once the prisoner leaves prison, presuming that they do indeed get a job, then I believe that society is reaping the rewards of it's investment. The former prisoner is contributing to society as a direct result of it's investment in the prisoner, in the form of his education within the prison environment.
Of course, the above argument relies on the assumption that the prisoner will be released, and hence does not apply to prisoners given life-sentences with no prospect of parole or release. Regardless, I still believe that society can benefits from the efforts of a prisoner who is never released. Even if someone is destined to spend their entire life in jail, they can still work. If the state & the prison authorities wish, they can put prisoners to work, if you like. For instance, in the state where I live, most of the fruit growers are incapable of harvesting their crops, simply because they can't find enough workers. Their fruit is literally rotting on the trees. Now, logistics aside, it may be possible to put prisoners to work, if you like. If this could be put into practice, then the prisoners would be performing a valuable service to society, and could conceivably gain benefits within the prison environment if they worked well.
I also hold the belief that even if a prisoner does not work and is indeed a burden on society, that there isn't necessarily anything wrong with that. Regardless of what a prisoner has done, is recognising their right to life on altruistic grounds that hard? Of course , the argument that the prisoner has actually forfeited the right to life could be put forward, but again, I see it as unnecessary state-sanctioned killing. By the way, would you extend the notion of a burden upon society to disabled people, people in vegetative states, or people who are simply unable to work?
Now, obviously this isn't directed at you, but rather people who support the death penalty due to the punishment or suffering that it apparently inflicts upon the prisoner. I say to them, would not spending the rest of their life locked up in prison be a comparable fate? In what way is the death penalty inherently harsher than life imprisonment. Granted, the circumstances and conditions inside the prison are the determining factor here, but if we run with the assumption that the conditions inside the prison are going to be relatively harsh, then again, why is the death penalty inherently more harmful or traumatic to the prisoner than life imprisonment?
| quote: | | It bears note, of course, that due to the extensive appeals process most people executed end up costing an even greater amount of resources. Naturally, though, if we had a perfect justice system this would no longer be necessary. |
I'd tend to agree with that, drawn out appeals are yet another reason to abolish it. Briefly suspending my opposition to it, in some cases those appeals are still justified. Even though with a perfect justice system I believe that a strong case can still be made against the death penalty, without one I don't see how any decent case can be made in support of it.
| quote: | | I'm almost somewhat unconvinced that the permanent imprisonment of a human being is any less inhumane than killing them. The United States was founded with Patrick Henry's words in mind: "Give me liberty or give me death!" And I share this belief - namely that our freedom is at least as important, if not more so, than the goal of prolonging our life. |
I hold the view that in the end, it depends on the conditions inside the prison. Some prisons can be hell holes, a fate worse then death to coin a phrase. Others can be incredibly humane, offer the prisoners opportunities to earn money and privileges, and generally treat their subjects with dignity and respect. In all honesty, I believe that the issue of whether life imprisonment is any more or less humane than execution needs to me made with the conditions inside the prison the primary factor taken into consideration. To summarize, I think that it can be both more humane and less humane. There is no way to make an absolute judgement that one is uniformly more humane than the other.
With regards to the Henry quotation, I see your point, perhaps it should be up to the prisoners themselves whether they want to be executed or imprisoned? I've never actually thought about that before. If the highest punishment that the courts were able to impose was life imprisonment, with the option of a prisoner requesting that an execution take place, we might not have this problem today. On the other hand, I personally would generally prefer imprisonment over death, depending on the circumstances of course. A humane prison with opportunities to read, write and so on would be preferable to execution. Again, the prospect of a release of course needs to be taken into consideration, and as such I don't think that the "Give me liberty or give me death!" principle can be applied to cases where the prisoner hasn't been given a life sentence.
| quote: | | The best thing that imprisonment has going for it is the fact that it can be terminated if you are found to have been wrongfully convicted. Back in the day exile was a common punishment for major offenses - and I think it was the most ethically sound punishment available. However, it probably isn't practical in modern society. |
Agreed, we're getting back to the (possibly utopian?) idea of the perfect justice system. Ah exile, one of my favourite topics.  Since my country was founded by convicts, I think that exile is a fantastic idea, after all, I wouldn't be here today if not for the British convict laws. 
Flippancy aside, I agree that it isn't viable in today's technologically advanced world. Ah well.
| quote: | With that I must agree with you entirely. 
It seems that I do not disagree with you at all about the problems with the death penalty. Any disagreement we may have would more likely be linked to differing analyses of the validity of the alternatives - particularly imprisonment. |
Seems that way, the validity of imprisonment & the my ethical objections to execution seem to be the major differences, when it comes to the death penalty as it's currently practised and enforced we appear to be in full agreement.
___________________
Currently Whoring:- Space Tribe Vs Electric Universe - Rabbit Hole
- CPU - So It Begins
- Too Short & Mistah FAB - The Sideshow
|
