epepke wrote:We're nuking Tel Aviv because of a botched execution in Arizona?

Seems to me that just getting someone outside in Arizona takes less than two hours to kill them. I'm not so sure about Tel Aviv.

This is one of those threads where people discuss horrendous ground ape fuckups to show they can still ponder ethics without God.

Elsewhere, one may give opinion on what Hamas might be granted in order to oppose the Israeli occupation of... of...

epepke wrote:
I've been on here long enough to know that the title of the forum shouldn't be taken at face value either.

Cito di Pense wrote:Elsewhere, one may give opinion on what Hamas might be granted in order to oppose the Israeli occupation of... of...

Chapter 9 of the Book of Beaks also known as the Book of Bloody Noses:

CHAPTER 9
1 After World War II, the Hebrews decided to move back to Israel,
2 Or Zion,
3 Or Palestine,
4 Or whatever it was,
5 Which caused problems,
6 Because Canaan was this really beautiful land,
7 Full of sand,
8 Which is why all the Arabs feel like they just can't live without it,
9 Since it goes great with all the other lands in the near east,
10 Which are also full of sand,
11 As well as oil,
12 Which causes problems too.

Cito di Pense wrote:There isn't even any justice here at RatSkep, if you listen to the feedback threads, where it is regularly pointed out that those holding the short end of the stick in conversation get sanctioned for FUA violations more often than those grabbing the business end.

Dunno about that. For sheer number of sanctions, I've got to be right up there, and the business end is where I do my business, mostly.

Cito di Pense wrote:

laklak wrote:Maybe a mock navel battle.

Dualling metaphysics at twenty parsecs. Yeah, it's a pun about dualism. And fluff.

Bollocks. I hoped nobody else had spotted that.

james1v wrote:If a vet tried to put down a dog and it took him/her two hours to do so, there would be uproar. The chances of that vet being allowed to carry out that procedure again (I'm guessing) would be slim, to non-existent.

The very least that should happen after this debacle, is the institution and the idiots involved, should never be allowed to have any involvement in these kind of procedures ever again. Ever.

Indeed, there should be lawsuit, expensive one. That's one way to approach ethics.

CarlPierce wrote:Horrible primitive culture based on retribution rather than trying to fix the causes. One day they might join the civilised world.

Justice should be largely based upon retribution. That's what justice is.

Take a child rapist and killer. If we caught him and somehow changed him in such a way that he no longer had the inclination to rape and kill children (or anyone else for that matter), wouldn't you still want him to do serious time? Wouldn't he still have to pay for the child he raped and killed? I should hope so, but that just is retribution. His suffering is an end in and of itself.

John Ayers wrote:Justice should be largely based upon retribution.

That's probably what Spinozasgalt will consider metaethics. At least, that's what I think Spinozasgalt should do. I can see you've thought about this really, really a lot. A lot.

Peter Brown wrote:

Weaver wrote:

Peter Brown wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Yeah. People flatter themselves. You see it right in these pages.

I'm anti death sentence purely on the grounds they get proven to have the wrong criminal nearly all the time, and in America the Justice system seems flawed in just far too many ways. Affluenza a reason to excuse murder whilst drunk, rulings corporations are people and money is free speech. More blacks in prison than whites, the Trayvon Martin ruling.

The US justice system is just fucked beyond belief!!!

I agree the US justice system has significant flaws, particularly with regards to death penalty cases, and I too am against the death penalty - but the highlighted portion of your statement isn't even close to true.

Well if it makes anyone feel any better the highlighted does not just refer to the US, its a world wide issue that includes the UK when we used to do it too. But seriously with that plea bargain scam just how many innocent citizens rot in US jails?

Too many - but that still doesn't justify your claim that those sentenced to the death penalty have been proven to be the wrong criminal most of the time. That is utterly untrue.

John Ayers wrote:Justice should be largely based upon retribution. That's what justice is.

That's begging the question. Maybe to some people that's justice. To me justice is a proper application of ethics.

Take a child rapist and killer. If we caught him and somehow changed him in such a way that he no longer had the inclination to rape and kill children (or anyone else for that matter), wouldn't you still want him to do serious time? Wouldn't he still have to pay for the child he raped and killed? I should hope so, but that just is retribution. His suffering is an end in and of itself.

Again, personally, I don't see what form the payment takes. Maybe it makes the family feel better, but I'm not sure that taking solace in another's suffering is a particularly healthy emotion. I don't think someone who raped and murdered a child would ever be rehabilitated enough to rejoin society. I'd lock them away for ever for the safety of others, but I wouldn't make them suffer unduly.

Again, personally, I don't see what form the payment takes. Maybe it makes the family feel better, but I'm not sure that taking solace in another's suffering is a particularly healthy emotion. I don't think someone who raped and murdered a child would ever be rehabilitated enough to rejoin society. I'd lock them away for ever for the safety of others, but I wouldn't make them suffer unduly.

The justice system is not for victims or relatives of victims period. When you kill another person the crime is against the state/society not the person you kill.

Civilised countries remove the implementation of justice away from the individual aggrieved. If I had a loved murdered I would be angry and probably want the person who did it dead. Luckily we don't allow angry people to make those sorts of decisions

Just another throwback to the infancy of our species.

I always keep front and centre two words in my mind when the death penalty comes up:

Derek Bentley.

The existence of even one Derek Bentley is a failure of the concept of 'justice' in its entirety.

John Ayers wrote:

CarlPierce wrote:Horrible primitive culture based on retribution rather than trying to fix the causes. One day they might join the civilised world.

Justice should be largely based upon retribution. That's what justice is.

Take a child rapist and killer. If we caught him and somehow changed him in such a way that he no longer had the inclination to rape and kill children (or anyone else for that matter), wouldn't you still want him to do serious time? Wouldn't he still have to pay for the child he raped and killed? I should hope so, but that just is retribution. His suffering is an end in and of itself.

Wait what? No.

If you can provably remove that from inside of them then there is no point to keep that person locked away at all.

The idea that giving someone a punishment to make others feel better is sick.
Incarcerating someone as a deterrent for anyone else trying the same act obviously doesn't work
Lastly you lock them up to stop them from doing it again. If there's no reason for that... Let them out.

If that person is left out, with no urge to perform the act you say then they can do something to improve the lives of others.

The idea that giving someone a punishment to make others feel better is sick.

However that is the basis of many (if not most) people's thinking

I think its actually hard cored into their thinking. But then I tend not to see evolution as black and white, but more of a sliding scale when it comes to the brain, and while some will regard rehabilitation or teaching as the preferred reaction, the far end of the scale will have the folk who need retribution.

Its a problem because with this hard cored view, the evidence (where ever it might lead us) can't change opinions.

After being on political forums that where that are minor differences on the way forward you can have debates, maybe change your mind when it comes to core principles you are wasting your time.

Sod the liberal idea of meeting people half way it doesnt work.

If someone has different core values to you fuck em , use politics to isolate and destroy (their power base). Reasoned debate does not work

Cthulhu's Trilby wrote:

John Ayers wrote:Justice should be largely based upon retribution. That's what justice is.

That's begging the question. Maybe to some people that's justice. To me justice is a proper application of ethics.

Take a child rapist and killer. If we caught him and somehow changed him in such a way that he no longer had the inclination to rape and kill children (or anyone else for that matter), wouldn't you still want him to do serious time? Wouldn't he still have to pay for the child he raped and killed? I should hope so, but that just is retribution. His suffering is an end in and of itself.

Again, personally, I don't see what form the payment takes. Maybe it makes the family feel better, but I'm not sure that taking solace in another's suffering is a particularly healthy emotion. I don't think someone who raped and murdered a child would ever be rehabilitated enough to rejoin society. I'd lock them away for ever for the safety of others, but I wouldn't make them suffer unduly.

The primary point of retribution is not to make the family feel better (the criminal would face retribution even if the family were against it; and so we can say that the family's feelings are not a sufficient condition or necessary for retribution). Mind you, I take comfort in knowing that the family is satisfied, but that is a side issue. What matters here is just deserts--giving him what he deserves and the proportional repayment of what was taken.

Presumptions that ideas of retribution are "primitive" and "emotional" rather than intuitive grasps of justice itself beg the question against retribution theorists.

Reading the posts here, or at least those posts against my view, the object of criticism seems to the legitimacy of punishment itself, and from that retributive justice is denied, since retribution is involved in punishment (punishment is not here understood in the behaviourist sense). I find that troublesome, because it seems to undermine the whole notion of mercy itself, as we can only be merciful to wrongdoers if they deserve to be punished. If mercy presupposes the idea that wrongdoers deserve punishment (at least some of them, anyways), then what does that say about mercy? The whole idea would need to be jettisoned, it seems.

What also strikes me as odd is why retribution is deemed to be "primitive" and "emotional", as if these adjective were somehow indicative of irrationality and not worthy of being embraced, but ideas of a person deserving a reward or preferential treatment is not. Is the idea that a person can deserve a reward but not punishment? If so, what justifies that, if not just the feel-feels of "progressive" liberals or bleeding hearts?

John Ayers wrote:Reading the posts here, or at least those posts against my view, the object of criticism seems to the legitimacy of punishment itself, and from that retributive justice is denied, since retribution is involved in punishment (punishment is not here understood in the behaviourist sense). I find that troublesome, because it seems to undermine the whole notion of mercy itself, as we can only be merciful to wrongdoers if they deserve to be punished. If mercy presupposes the idea that wrongdoers deserve punishment (at least some of them, anyways), then what does that say about mercy? The whole idea would need to be jettisoned, it seems.

Yes.

Problem?

mrjonno wrote:Reasoned debate does not work

Ah, that must be why you registered at RatSkep.

Peter Brown wrote:But then I tend not to see evolution as black and white, but more of a sliding scale when it comes to the brain, and while some will regard rehabilitation or teaching as the preferred reaction, the far end of the scale will have the folk who need retribution.

Yeah, I can see how deeply you've thought about this. Must be how mrjonno knows that his opinion is not uncommon.

mrjonno wrote:

The idea that giving someone a punishment to make others feel better is sick.

However that is the basis of many (if not most) people's thinking

Maybe, or maybe not. But that's not how retribution is justified. In fact, many a theorist would state that retribution taking place with the intent of taking pleasure in the suffering of another person is an evil itself. They'd call that brash vengeance. Typically retributionists do not justify retribution in this way. Instead, the intent is not malicious or sadistic, but carried out as a duty, preferably with a sense of disappointment that this action is required.

For instance, while sitting in a court case, I once heard a judge sentence a man to jail for 60 days, and this judge called it her "sad duty". The idea here isn't that the man didn't deserve to go to jail, but that the whole thing was unfortunate and regrettable. She took no pleasure in it, despite the fact that the young man physically hurt several people in a drunken stupor.

Animavore wrote:

John Ayers wrote:Reading the posts here, or at least those posts against my view, the object of criticism seems to the legitimacy of punishment itself, and from that retributive justice is denied, since retribution is involved in punishment (punishment is not here understood in the behaviourist sense). I find that troublesome, because it seems to undermine the whole notion of mercy itself, as we can only be merciful to wrongdoers if they deserve to be punished. If mercy presupposes the idea that wrongdoers deserve punishment (at least some of them, anyways), then what does that say about mercy? The whole idea would need to be jettisoned, it seems.

Yes.

Problem?

Yes, because the rejection is based on the premise that no one deserves to be punished. Justification for that premise while also believing that some people deserve to be rewarded, treated fairly, and so on, seems implausible. The position seems to undermine the whole idea of people deserving anything.