Oldie but a goodie

[less]

Here´s an oldie that me and my friends used to argue over in high school. The Tookie thread got me thinking of it, so here we go.

(Bear in mind that this is thought experiment. The situation described could never arise, so don´t bother pointing that out. And no, it´s not about Tookie, so please don´t act as if it is.)

Say we have a man on trial, and we know with 100% certainty that he has committed the vilest, most abominable crime ever. Every horrenduos, ungodly act you can think of and a few you can´t thrown together (I´ll spare you the details, but you get my drift). He shows no remorse for his actions whatsoever.

But we also know, again with a 100% certainty, that this man will never break the law again in his life. From this day on, he will be a model citizen, not even get a parking ticket. The public knows nothing of this man, his crimes or this trial, and never will.

Should this man be punished?

[CrazyMoronX]

Tookie was reformed! HE DIDN'T DESERVE TO DIE! :cry

Anyway, if the guy did all that stuff, he should be shot in the head straight away, right after the jury finds him guilty.

And, if he gets a high priced lawyer, or team of lawyers, and gets away with it, Samuel L. Jackson should come out with a shotgun and blow his ass away.

End of story.

[less]

I beg to differ. I think institutionalyzed punishment´s only function should be preventive, and that the guy should walk.There is no public demand, there is no possibility that anyone would gain from this man´s death. I say let him walk.

[CrazyMoronX]

Having a man shot in the head right after conviction would be a great way to prevent further crimes, I'd say.

[less]

You´re forgetting about the "no-one will ever know"-part, as well as the "100 % crimefree life from now on"-part. Killing him will prevent nothing.

[CrazyMoronX]

True, but he still deserves to die.

Obviously, this person is the worst human to have ever existed on the face of the planet. Letting him get away with such atrocities, would make us ourselves the criminals.

Even if no one knew about it, surely, the world would be worse off for turning its back on justice.

[mow]

He shouldnt be punished by the death penalty. A murder is a murder is a murder is a murder is a murder. That sounds retarded I know, but I would perfer losing the argument than changing my mind.

[less]

True, but he still deserves to die.

Obviously, this person is the worst human to have ever existed on the face of the planet. Letting him get away with such atrocities, would make us ourselves the criminals.

Even if no one knew about it, surely, the world would be worse off for turning its back on justice.
And that´s the core of the problem right there. What is justice? Why do we punish? Is it really only because we want to make society safer, or do we do it just to punish? I say punishing for satisfaction is meaningless.

[mow]

True, but he still deserves to die.

Obviously, this person is the worst human to have ever existed on the face of the planet. Letting him get away with such atrocities, would make us ourselves the criminals.

Even if no one knew about it, surely, the world would be worse off for turning its back on justice.

And in the same fashion, killing him would make us criminals. there is no justification/qaulification for taking a human life.

The core of the issuse stems for the oldest "justice" rule; an eye for an eye. which works just fine if someone broke your fav. vase and had to replace it, but taking a human life in return for another is wrong. It goes against any simblance of morals (by morals I dont mean religious, rather; basic human morals and understanding for right and wrong) and harmony in creation.

True, me being more occupied by the fact our culture and soicety agrees with the concept of taking a person's life as a punishment, much more than the judical aspect of the case(s) might make my reasoning flawed, but it doesnt change the fact killing for revenge isnt the right course of action.

[Hangatýr]

Humans live to die, yet people get convicted for killing. Things would be far easier if the surviving relatives and friends of the victims choose the punishment, but meh.

[CrazyMoronX]

Are trying to suggest we stop punishing people?

If I killed your parents, and you somehow knew I would never kill anyone again, wouldn't you want me to be punished, or would you be fine with the thought that I would never kill again.

Capital punishment in some aspects is used as a way of providing closure to those affected by the crimes.

Obviously, you're stone set in your position, so what's the point of arguing? In this imaginary case, were everyone is oblivious to what is going on, it doesn't matter at all. So why not kill the guy for shits and giggles? How's that wrong? They would certainly, never do it again.

[mow]

Im sorry if I came out sounding like a wanker, that wasnt my goal. But you said it yourself, it provides closure, nothing more than that.

If you killed my parents, I would probabily be in such an emotional rollercoaster that I would most likely be unable to form any clear understanding of my surrondings. Of course I will hate you and I will despise you, but I do hope that during such a time, my rationalty would kick into gear, becuase after all, wont you have loved ones who will be devasted by your death, even though it is "just". If I went through with it and agreed that you should recieve the capital punishment, my parents would still not come back to me. They have died, you have died, and anyone who was connected to both you and them would still be misreable.

That being said I agree punishment is due, and hence prisons were constructed. My entire issue is the fact that the lenght of our lives is treated with shortworth. We kill, they kill, we retalite and kill, they counter us and kill some more. It's a never ending misreable cycle. No one wins.

and I most surely threw the thread a bit of topic, but I hope I clarifed my point a bit.

[rimpelcut]

he new the consequences. If he afterwards understood why you have to follow the law he would accept his death sentance.

[Kagutsuchi]

if there was a good reason behind it then he doesnt deserve punishment

[mushi]

You would kill him, tell the public his crimes and say we no longer tolerate your shit. you do anything along the lines of Murder or Rape - you die. Anything along the lines of theft, we cut off your dominant hand. It's time we took a no tolerant view on crime and i'd start it by using him.

[less]

I'm not suggesting that we ban punishment as a society, nor am I trying to debate about death penalty or anything like that. This is just a train of thought designed to make people aware of the motivations behind punishment. Many people who claim to support the death penalty solely on the grounds that it's deterrent insists that this hypothetical guy should be killed for his actions.

And yes, I am myself stone set in my conviction here. That's the reason this is in the philosophical forum, not the debate forum.

[rimpelcut]

wow I didn't get the situation because you can't possible know that the man won't do crime again you see. In that case let him out, his actions where his fath and jail is meant to learn from your mistakes. But what if he knew that they will know that he won't do crime again! Then that bastard probable commited the crimes delibratly just for once in his life only to get out again. Then he should die. But how would they know that he did it on purpose? Hhmmmmm... this is a though one

[dale2]

Killing him will not undo anything he has done or prevent any future crimes and therefore it is pointless

[Kasumi 霞]

Well if it's aboslutely sure I guess he should live but he better break his back doing community service.

[Gene]

Yeah the guy should still be punished if he has no remorse for what he has done. He has to learn his lesson.

[rimpelcut]

he already has learned his lesson.