Bali bombers executed.

[pk]

Firing squad eh? Oh well.

Fuck 'em, I'm glad they are dead.

My only regret this happened is that some twisted cunts out there now consider them as martyrs.

 

[derf]

Firing squad eh? Oh well.

Fuck 'em, I'm glad they are dead.

My only regret this happened is that some twisted cunts out there now consider them as martyrs.

They are dead and six foot under. Bye bye and fuck off bastards.
There are some here who want to get revenge. Fucking idiots but the good news is that the majorty wanted them pushing up grass and the country's Islamic council has agreed that they were so much dog shit and not fighters for Islam.
OK, I paraphrased.

 

[turing test]

Not really. I don't think the moral case for capital punishment rests on deterrence, but as Roadkill wanted practical arguments, I made them.

Why not? (And how does "behaviorism" know the mind of every potential murderer?)

[I don't think the moral case for capital punishment rests on deterrence

Well why bring it up? You did in regards to repeating criminals, which is strange.

 

[Roadkill]

It all comes down to the Mill quote: is fining a thief self-contradictory? If not, then neither is hanging a murderer. If so, then how should we punish thieves and kidnappers?

I don't see the dilemma. I'm quite happy with various combinations of fines and/or prison being used for all of them.

I don't rely on deterrence: I adduced it when you asked for some practical benefits of capital punishment. Deterrence is a red herring because it's unprovable unless the death penalty is applied domestically under controlled conditions, which is why, I suspect, some abolitionists place so much weight on it.

I never said you relied on it. I do, however, think it odd to adduce it in support of an argument when you yourself have acknowledged that it's very shaky ground indeed for reasons we've already been over.

How long would you gaol murderers? Should a hard labour regime be imposed, and what special disincentive you employ to stop rapists and robbers from adding murder to the charge book?

Have you any evidence that the current system does encourage rapists and robbers to 'add murder to the charge book?' I've not seen any. Partly as a result, I don't see any reason to make major changes to the system as it is.

 

[Azrael]

Well why bring it up?

Already answered this in #90.

I don't see the dilemma.

Exactly, there is no dilemma: likewise, there's no dilemma with hanging. In practical terms a fine is identical to theft (or indeed robbery, if the convict refuses to pay) but due process alters the morality of taking someone else's money. If you can fine thieves, you can hang murderers.

I brought up deterrence because, if it occurs, it's a very strong argument for capital punishment. As you say the problem is in proving it. Deterrence is a Catch-22, chicken and egg debate: "Hanging doesn't deter!"; "Yes it does!"; "Prove it!"; "Okay, bring it back and see."; "No, because you've no proof it deters …" *Bang head against wall*

That's why I began with a moral argument for the death penalty. I strongly suspect that it would deter some murders, but that shouldn't decide the case for restoration.

The fact that the murder rate in Britain has risen significantly since the middle of the century shows that something is wrong. Maybe it's not the abolition of the gallows, but I'm almost certain that the weakening of our gaols is a major cause. (Along with the end of beat policing.)

So what in your view is a just sentence for murder (beyond the simple fact of imprisonment)?

 

[turing test]

Already answered this in #90.

Exactly, there is no dilemma?

The dilemma is that you disregard the argument that there is no deterrent effect of capital punishment by claiming that such an effect is un-provable-a red herring. Then you go on to claim that there is some deterrent effect of capital punishment on repeat offenders.

So which is it? a real effect or a "Red Herring?" It's a bit of a contradiction.

 

[Azrael]

The dilemma is you disregard the argument that there is no deterrent effect of capital punishment by claiming that such an effect is un-provable-a red herring. Then you go on to claim that there is some deterrent effect of capital punishment on repeat offenders.

So which is it a real effect or a "Red Herring?" It's a bit of a contradiction.

To clear up my comments on deterrence (which have not, so far as I can see, contradicted themselves):-

I've not claimed any deterrent effect: I said it's a strong possibility in certain cases, namely calculated and premeditated homicide committed by rational "career" criminals in the furtherance of crime. As deterrence is, probably, culturally specific, pre-1957 statistics have only limited value (for good and ill, 2008 and 1957 Britain are alien to one another), so we won't know for sure until the gallows return. Therefore other arguments need to be mustered in their defence.

I will, however, point out the flaws in the America comparison, in order to stop the book being closed on deterrence. All I'm arguing is that the case isn't proven either way.

 

[turing test]

I've argued many times here that the abolition of beat policing has contributed to spiraling crime rates -- but it won't seriously deter "professional" criminals, the type of rational crooks who may be deterred by hanging.

I've not claimed any deterrent effect: I said it's a strong possibility in certain cases, namely calculated and premeditated homicide committed by rational "career" criminals in the furtherance of crime.

You just did it again. Sorry to be snarky but which is it?

 

[Azrael]

You just did it again. Sorry to be snarky but which is it?

Both. There's a difference between asserting a fact and suggesting a possibility.

 

[Roadkill]

Exactly, there is no dilemma: likewise, there's no dilemma with hanging. In practical terms a fine is identical to theft (or indeed robbery, if the convict refuses to pay) but due process alters the morality of taking someone else's money. If you can fine thieves, you can hang murderers.

I brought up deterrence because, if it occurs, it's a very strong argument for capital punishment. As you say the problem is in proving it. Deterrence is a Catch-22, chicken and egg debate: "Hanging doesn't deter!"; "Yes it does!"; "Prove it!"; "Okay, bring it back and see."; "No, because you've no proof it deters …" *Bang head against wall*

That's why I began with a moral argument for the death penalty. I strongly suspect that it would deter some murders, but that shouldn't decide the case for restoration.

The fact that the murder rate in Britain has risen significantly since the middle of the century shows that something is wrong. Maybe it's not the abolition of the gallows, but I'm almost certain that the weakening of our gaols is a major cause. (Along with the end of beat policing.)

So what in your view is a just sentence for murder (beyond the simple fact of imprisonment)?

I think this has pretty much run its course now. You believe in the death penalty as retribution; I don't. You think there might be some practical benefits to the death penalty that go to support the moral case for them; I don't think there's any evidence to support that, etc.

The fact that the murder rate has risen since the '60s proves that something is wrong, sure, but that something need not be anything in the criminal justice system. Indeed, the fact that the murder rate has not risen in other countries after abolition suggests as much.

What's a just sentence for murder? Pretty much what happens now, in terms of sentence length and conditions: dangerous offenders get a whole-life tariff, others get at least the chance of rehabilitation. And if they turn out to have been put there wrongly, at least the state can free them with an apology and compensation, rather than the sorry token gesture of a posthumous pardon and an offer to bury them in more salubrious surroundings than the grounds of the prison...

 

[Azrael]

I think this has pretty much run its course now. You believe in the death penalty as retribution; I don't.

That's fair enough.

While I don't think that our justice system is exclusively responsible for the rise in crime, I do believe its softening and bureaucratisation to be prime causes. Against the rightly pathetic spectre of posthumous apology must lie the graves of wrongly-convicted suicides and the people murdered by released murderers. Neither side of the debate has it clean.

You're entirely right on the above point, it does comes down to which theory of justice -- retributive or rehabilitative -- you support.