Debate: The state should have a death penalty.

[RR]

Proposition: The state should have a death penalty.

Affirmative: Valenzuela
Negative: Poofler

Mod note: This is a one-on-one debate between Valenzuela and Poofler. Posts made by others will be deleted and the poster subject to ban/suspendion. Please comment here: http://tinyurl.com/2nhotp

[valenzuela]

My case is that the state should have a death penalty.

The death penalty is part of the criminal justice system, what should be the goal of the criminal justice system? Iron listed 4 possibilities a while ago, those are: Deterrence, Retribution, Rehabilitation and Incapacitation.
Deterrence should be a factor but not the most important factor. Deterrence should be taken into account when choosing the appropriate sentences, for instance if we kill everyone who stole a car, people would stop stealing cars but nobody that steals a car should be killed.
Rehabilitation should be a very small factor IMO, the state should not waste lots of resources on rehabilitating prisoners, however the jailing system should make sure that prisoners don’t get any worse in jail.
Incapacitation should also be a factor; the population is clearly safer if a rapist is locked on a jail.
Retribution should be one of the biggest factors but the current criminal system does not care about this.

Let’s take a look at an hypothetical case. A man rapes and brutally kills three teenage girls. What is the correct sentence? I propose death penalty; I suppose poofler thinks that man should be locked for 20 years or higher.
Lets look at each different goal the criminal justice can have.
Deterrence: Since raping and brutally killing girls is a despicable act, almost nobody is going to get involved on it because you are getting jailed for life instead of killed; I don’t support death penalty for deterrence reasons but I do think it’s a decent case.
Rehabilitation: Rehabilitating such criminals is a waste of time and resources. I think that you agree with me on this so I won’t comment on it. (If you think that the state should be responsible for rehabilitating the lowest of the lowest then I will expand on it).
Incapacitation: I think that life sentence and death penalty accomplish exactly the same here, unless of course that criminal is allowed to get involved with other prisoners.
Retribution: Here is basically where my case stands. When a parent loses a child in such a brutal manner there is obviously no way of reversing the damage, but I think that the parents have the right to ask for a death penalty.
The criminal blatantly broke the right of another person, so I think that he loses his right to life. If the person whose life was ruined because of a scumbag wants that scumbag to be killed, he has the right to do so.
My case is that the victim relatives have the right over the offendors life. ( note that only in some cases, if a thief enters a house and gets shot and then he dies, the thief relative don’t have the right to ask for a death penalty, I’m not going to pretend I know where the line is but I do think that we see enough cases in which the death penalty is clearly justified)

That is what I’m offering for now. I will wait poofler to make his case before I continue.

[Poofler]

Thanks V. I'll spend some time later on the utilitarian aspects of capital punishment (CP). Even if the there were no racial bias, the deterrent effect was conclusive, and no innocent people were irreversibly put to death, I would still oppose CP. Those often-used utilitarian reasons can sometimes imply an underlying moral acceptance of the act, but decry it for being impossible to implement acceptably. And since you're placing little or no ephasis on those yet, I'll address the moral heart of your argument first.

[ QUOTE ]
The criminal blatantly broke the right of another person, so I think that he loses his right to life. If the person whose life was ruined because of a scumbag wants that scumbag to be killed, he has the right to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

As you stated, your argument rests on the notion of retribution. I have to ask, would you support an eye for an eye for all crimes? Should torturers be tortured by the state? Should rapists be raped by a state rapist? Should a battering husband be smacked accross the face by a convicting judge?

Retributivist justice must be distinguished from restoritive justice. If I steal your car, and you extract the value of that car from me, you are making yourself whole again. This is restorative justice. Retributivist justice does not "right the wrong" of the original criminal act. It is a form of vengence, usually justified by the notion that an inflictor of harm deserves to be punished equivalently to the harm he inflicted. CP does not make the victim whole, it is retributivist justice.

The retributivist act is a new act of evil, distinct and separate from the original act that supposedly justifies it. It does not mitigate the past harm, or protect us from future harm. It serves to retaliate, unlike self-defense which stops current harm, or as explained, restoritive justice which reverses past harm. It is harm for the purpose of harm, rationalized from a primal urge for revenge. Such a notion is not more justified than the initial harm itself, which is equivalently harm for the purpose of harm. And such a new harm must be justified by more than the simple assertion that the victim's family has the right to a murderer's life.

I'll stop here, as I'm not entirely sure where you are going to derive the moral right.

[valenzuela]

[ QUOTE ]
As you stated, your argument rests on the notion of retribution. I have to ask, would you support an eye for an eye for all crimes?

[/ QUOTE ]

No that is because in my OP I state that we have to take into account 4 considerations. Deterrence, rehabilitation, incapacitation and retribution.
I stated that on the death penalty, the 3 first factors were more or less the same and that the last factor was the one that changed.
For instance if I get drunk and beat someone up, and then as punishment I get beaten up, we have a problem with incapacitation and rehablititation.

O

[Poofler]

I don't understand what you mean. Can you frame it differently or more elaborately?

[valenzuela]

for some reason only one part of my post was posted, let me post the other part before I expand on why I dont think eye for an eye should be the punishment on every case.

[valenzuela]

[ QUOTE ]
The retributivist act is a new act of evil, distinct and separate from the original act that supposedly justifies it. It does not mitigate the past harm, or protect us from future harm. It serves to retaliate, unlike self-defense which stops current harm, or as explained, restoritive justice which reverses past harm. It is harm for the purpose of harm, rationalized from a primal urge for revenge. Such a notion is not more justified than the initial harm itself, which is equivalently harm for the purpose of harm.

[/ QUOTE ]

1)I thought you had said that if deterrent effect was conclusive you would still not support the death penalty.
2)Do you realize you are saying that the desire of revenge of a father that had his daughter killed and raped is not more justified than the original criminal?


Why does the family have a right to the criminals life: When I take a position on a subject I see how human beings work not how they should work.
When a somebodys life gets ruined for no valid reason at all they want revenge. You are saying that the ones who want revenge have no such right to want revenge. I completely disagree. I accept how human beings work and I accept that people want revenge when their lives are ruined for no good reason at all.
IMO the moral right of the parents to want the prisioner killed is derived because its only natural to want revenge in such case.
If you seriously think that a father whose daughter was killed is being immoral for wanting the criminal killed im puzzled.
In this case you have two parties: The family who has the moral right to want the prisioner killed AND the criminal.
We cant please them both, since the family has not been involved on an immoral act and the criminal has, we should please the family. Why are you taking the criminal side again?

edit: changed a "he" for a "we"

[valenzuela]

Joe is on a party and he gets drunk so and he beats Paul, not badly injuring him but leaving him kinda like after a boxing match.
What should be Joe penalty?
I think that it should be a fine, if Paul still wants Joe beaten up then even though he has the right to want that it should not be done because it will have even more negative consequences for Joe in the long run. ( such as self-esteem problems, the humiliation of being beaten up by the state,etc)

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
1)I thought you had said that if deterrent effect was conclusive you would still not support the death penalty.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it was conclusive, you'd start to have a ulititarian reason for advocating CP. If you want to argue there is an effect, please present evidence. I'll dispute it. Even if I did not dispute it, I am still opposed to CP on moral grounds.

[ QUOTE ]
2)Do you realize you are saying that the desire of revenge of a father that had his daughter killed and raped is not more justified than the original criminal?

[/ QUOTE ]

Desires are emotional and physical wants. I do not dispute he feels a certain way, but this has nothing to do with justification.

[ QUOTE ]
Why does the family have a right to the criminals life: When I take a position on a subject I see how human beings work not how they should work.
When a somebodys life gets ruined for no valid reason at all they want revenge. You are saying that the ones who want revenge have no such right to want revenge. I completely disagree. I accept how human beings work and I accept that people want revenge when their lives are ruined for no good reason at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I accept many want this is as well. However, you are attempting to equate desire with justification. Do you dispute the murderer desired to kill and rape people? This does not make his actions justified.

[ QUOTE ]
IMO the moral right of the parents to want the prisioner killed is derived because its only natural to want revenge in such case.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the same desire = justification reasoning.

[ QUOTE ]
If you seriously think that a father whose daughter was killed is being immoral for wanting the criminal killed im puzzled.
In this case you have two parties: The family who has the moral right to want the prisioner killed AND the criminal.
We cant please them both, since the family has not been involved on an immoral act and the criminal has, we should please the family. Why are you taking the criminal side again?

[/ QUOTE ]

Families do not and should not decide the sentencing of state legal systems. You are essentially advocating that the winner of a trial gets to name his price. Suppose I sue you for hitting me. I prove you did in fact hit me. Now suppose I think I should be able to knee you in the groin as retribution. You don't want this. The state should automatically please me, because we differ on our desires about the sentencing?

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
Joe is on a party and he gets drunk so and he beats Paul, not badly injuring him but leaving him kinda like after a boxing match.
What should be Joe penalty?
I think that it should be a fine, if Paul still wants Joe beaten up then even though he has the right to want that it should not be done because it will have even more negative consequences for Joe in the long run. ( such as self-esteem problems, the humiliation of being beaten up by the state,etc)

[/ QUOTE ]

So you don't advocate an eye for an eye when you believe the retribution will be worse than the initial act? Is this correct? As long as the retaliation is equal to or lesser than the harm originally inflicted, you'll take eye for an eye?

Suppose you were tortured by a man who used all sorts of terrible medieval devices on you. You want him tortured in return by the state. Is this ok? Why or why not?