Was This Warranted Or Necessary?

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Ferd

ahh, I read the quote wrong. Thank yoiu for pionting it out... I must be a humnaitarian... at least in part.

desert certainly is part of the equasion. I would only state that if we all got what we deserved, it would be terrible for us all.

As it relates to Capital Punishment, if we rely only on a person deserving the death penalty, I think we fall short. the use of the DP should be about insuring the safty of society. certainly you dont put someone to death who is not deserving. however, desert becomes a brutal dictator when we rely on it alone.

CS Lewis was certainly a great mind than I, and I tread lightly here.... I still say we dont simply sentence because of what one deserves. That may be a starting point but it is not the end of it all.

I wanted to add that I think C.S. Lewis would agree with you on what I bolded because there definetely is a place for mercy in sentencing. He seemed to say as much in the article.

Also, if you think no one deserves the death penalty then that is one thing and not something I am ready to argue against. However, I don't think that is your belief. I think you believe that some people deserve the death penalty and that some do not. I think you believe that we should never give the death penalty to those that do not deserve it and that we should not always give the death penalty to those who do deserve it. I think we all agree on this.

I think the disconnect most people have is in thinking on the issue of there being unjustness in giving people less of a punishment than the one they deserve. In the strictest sense of the word such a thing is unjust. So in that sense the more mercy shown to a criminal the more unjust that act of mercy becomes.

However, our laws take this into account. We build into them a range of possible sentences. For example, the just desert of manslaughter might be something like 5 to 15 years imprisonment. Therefore, the just desert of committing manslaughter is anything from 5 to 15 years imprisonment. Mercy can be shown by giving a sentence near 5 years and harshness can be shown by giving a sentence near 15 years. This gives us a way to both give criminals what they deserve and a way to be merciful or harsh in doing it.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by CC1

I am sure every murderer in America feels the same way but thankfully many times justice is served. As it should be.

If you are inferring we should not give people what they deserve when the commit crimes our society would be total anarchy.

Of course I am not inferring that. But leaving this woman in prison for life, for example, would no doubt cause nothing. Death is very final.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by ILG

Of course I am not inferring that. But leaving this woman in prison for life, for example, would no doubt cause nothing. Death is very final.

Actually life on earth is very temporary.
She made a very bad move.

[Praxeas]

Since most of the arguments here have been "she's got an IQ of 70, spare her life" I would like to know, what if the guilty was a 27 year old MIT grad with an high IQ...then what? Oh and white and male

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Ferd

ahh, I read the quote wrong. Thank yoiu for pionting it out... I must be a humnaitarian... at least in part.

desert certainly is part of the equasion. I would only state that if we all got what we deserved, it would be terrible for us all.

As it relates to Capital Punishment, if we rely only on a person deserving the death penalty, I think we fall short. the use of the DP should be about insuring the safty of society. certainly you dont put someone to death who is not deserving. however, desert becomes a brutal dictator when we rely on it alone.

CS Lewis was certainly a great mind than I, and I tread lightly here.... I still say we dont simply sentence because of what one deserves. That may be a starting point but it is not the end of it all.

But if it is not what we deserve, and rather the protection of society then carried to the logical end let's begin locking up and/or executing those that MIGHT harm society. What about the guy who beats his wife? How long do we lock him up? Until he is no longer a threat? If that is the standard then some would be locked up for torturing a cat and never released because they are a threat to society.

Justice MUST be based on what one deserves or there is no standard. That is not to say public safety shouldn't also be figured in, but it must be secondary to what one deserves it should never be the standard by which we punish.

Froggy is right, if public safety is the only issue then just lock them up.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

But if it is not what we deserve, and rather the protection of society then carried to the logical end let's begin locking up and/or executing those that MIGHT harm society. What about the guy who beats his wife? How long do we lock him up? Until he is no longer a threat? If that is the standard then some would be locked up for torturing a cat and never released because they are a threat to society.

Justice MUST be based on what one deserves or there is no standard. That is not to say public safety shouldn't also be figured in, but it must be secondary to what one deserves it should never be the standard by which we punish.

Froggy is right, if public safety is the only issue then just lock them up.

I think we are looking at the same duck and discribing different ends Baron.

as I said previously desert is certainly part of the equasion. in fact I will go further and state that it must be the starting point or as you say we become a police state locking up potential criminals.

At the same time, if we simply gave people what they deserved, via punishment, and took no thought to protecting society (I think we have done this and the proof is in what happens when a person goes to prison and comes OUT a hardened criminal.) we have failed society.

The greater good to me must exceed simply giving a criminal the punishment he deserves.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Since most of the arguments here have been "she's got an IQ of 70, spare her life" I would like to know, what if the guilty was a 27 year old MIT grad with an high IQ...then what? Oh and white and male

beyond what he got for his last meal would not have made the news... and we would not be talking about it.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I wanted to add that I think C.S. Lewis would agree with you on what I bolded because there definetely is a place for mercy in sentencing. He seemed to say as much in the article.

Also, if you think no one deserves the death penalty then that is one thing and not something I am ready to argue against. However, I don't think that is your belief. I think you believe that some people deserve the death penalty and that some do not. I think you believe that we should never give the death penalty to those that do not deserve it and that we should not always give the death penalty to those who do deserve it. I think we all agree on this.

I think the disconnect most people have is in thinking on the issue of there being unjustness in giving people less of a punishment than the one they deserve. In the strictest sense of the word such a thing is unjust. So in that sense the more mercy shown to a criminal the more unjust that act of mercy becomes.

However, our laws take this into account. We build into them a range of possible sentences. For example, the just desert of manslaughter might be something like 5 to 15 years imprisonment. Therefore, the just desert of committing manslaughter is anything from 5 to 15 years imprisonment. Mercy can be shown by giving a sentence near 5 years and harshness can be shown by giving a sentence near 15 years. This gives us a way to both give criminals what they deserve and a way to be merciful or harsh in doing it.

You drive to the heart of why I believe that where the death penalty is concerned, protecting society must play a large part in the decision.

I do believe in the death penalty. in this case, i believe this woman was correctly put to death. There were 3 people who were deserving of the death penalty. But in this case, based on more than just this crime, this woman proved that she was a danger beyond that of being a killer. and that danger adds to the murder and made her life a danger to society.

in some ways I think mercy has caused us more harm than good. because we have far too often given more concern to desert/mercy (or lack thereof) than to what is best for society.

Beware radical views to follow.

For example. you find an 18 year old kid charged with selling crack or crystal meth. Dude gets convicted and sentenced. he gets somewhere between 5 and 10 years in state prison. mercy dictating the length of the sentence and desert dictating that he will spend time in the "big house".

We simply do not take into account what is best for society. we just punish the guy giving mercy where a judege deems it is warrented.

In the end this guy gets out of jail a hardened criminal. Having learned the trade from professionals and now in addition to selling drugs he is vastly more violent. We have done nothing to protect society.

In my view it would be better to sentence this kid to a halfway house, make him work to pay society back for his time in the system as well as including a requirement that he find some education and viable employment before being released back into society. (which he pays for himself while working and incarcerated in the halfway house. society should not have to pay for it)

The discussion (IMHO) has been framed wrong from the start. on one hand we have those who like CSL speak of what one deserves, and on the other hand we have those who want to rehabilitate and be nice to criminals. in the end it is a discussion about what one does or does not deserve.

when I believe all we do with this is either create greater monsters or let monsters off the hook with the knowelege that the punisment for thier crimes isnt so bad.

neither view works. protecting society has gotten short shrift.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Since most of the arguments here have been "she's got an IQ of 70, spare her life" I would like to know, what if the guilty was a 27 year old MIT grad with an high IQ...then what? Oh and white and male

Probably life in prison, although I would hold him more accountable than the low IQ woman. Masterminding murders would be a lot worse as an MIT graduate I would suspect, which might flip over into needing the death penalty. I was not for the death penalty until I read about Ted Bundy escaping from prison. He was so smart, he managed to escape and murder. That would need to be prevented. So, in my mind, the question is not what does the murderer deserve, but is the prison system capable of preventing something further from occurring.(Never mind the arguments that they put sex-offenders on the street everyday.....which is a whole other argument and makes me very angry.)

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by ILG

Probably life in prison, although I would hold him more accountable than the low IQ woman. Masterminding murders would be a lot worse as an MIT graduate I would suspect, which might flip over into needing the death penalty. I was not for the death penalty until I read about Ted Bundy escaping from prison. He was so smart, he managed to escape and murder. That would need to be prevented. So, in my mind, the question is not what does the murderer deserve, but is the prison system capable of preventing something further from occurring.(Never mind the arguments that they put sex-offenders on the street everyday.....which is a whole other argument and makes me very angry.)

Well first of all I have to ask why? Why is being an MIT grad making masterminding a murder worse? Keep in mind it apparently does not take an MIT grad or a rocket scientist to mastermind a murder...a woman with an IQ of 70 did it.

Second,for everyone else, if you are against others being put to death for crimes then that throws the entire "she only has a 70 IQ" argument out the window