From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: morality????????
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Date: 11 Nov 92 04:15:45 GMT

mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:

>In article <ednclark.721007809@kraken> ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
>>dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil) writes:
>>
>>>In article <1d6e46INN7e6@shrike.und.ac.za> dace@shrike.und.ac.za (Roy Dace) writes:
>>>>From: dace@shrike.und.ac.za (Roy Dace)
>>>>Subject: Re: morality????????
>>>>Date: 3 Nov 92 17:49:58 GMT
>>>>kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
>>>>: In article <1d3nt2INN7m6@shrike.und.ac.za>, dace@shrike.und.ac.za (Roy Dace) writes:
>>>>: > keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>>>>: > : 
>>>>: > : Capital punishment should be administered only if there is no doubt.
>>>>: > 
>>>>: > IMHO, there is NEVER `no doubt'.
>>>>: 
>>>>:    Suppose the police catch someone holding a knife, the sharp end
>>>>: of which is planted in someone else, and the person does not claim
>>>>: self-defense.  Is there any doubt there?
>>>>
>>>>Well, I can't think of any, so I was wrong.  Nonetheless, I believe the death
>>>>penalty is unnecessary.  Yes, society as a whole can be justified in making
>>>>decisions which an individual should not be able to make, however it is
>>>>important that in general in a.a we use killing as a demonstration that
>>>>the God of the bible is thoroughly rotten, and I believe the same can be said
>>>>of a society which chooses to kill its members.  We are not perfect moral
>>>>judges.
>>
>>>Counterargument: a murderer is no longer a member of society -- he has 
>>>renounced his membership by breaking the laws.
>>
>>>In addition, the death penalty is not about morality, at least not in my 
>>>opinion. It is defense. Can you name one person who, after being executed, 
>>>became a repeat offender?
>>>+-------------+------------------+---------------------------------+
>>>| Damien Neil | dpn2@po.cwru.edu | Case Western Reserve University |
>>>+-------------+------------------+---------------------------------+
>>
>>Precisely, here's a couple of other backing points. If we allow a murderer
>>or rapist to continue in this society, they are contributing to the violence
>>of the society we live in in more than one way. Not only are they likely
>>repeat perpetrators, but they are likely to influence others who may not
>>have been violent and also are given the opportunity to reproduce and raise
>>kids with a role model murderer or rapist parent. Anyone who commits these
>>crimes has forfeited their right to remain within our society. I do not
>>beleive in retribution and I beleive these people have gone beyond a second
>>chance, they are unsafe to be allowed to live in our society. Many societies
>>have exiled particularly nasty offenders rather than execute them, maybe
>>this is a solution.
>>
>>	Let's evacuate a few islands in the Pacific and
>>Atlantic with massive recompensation to those removed, and just plonk any
>>really nasty offenders on this island without any modern convenience and let
>>them sort out their livelihoods amongst themselves. This would be a pretty
>>good deterrent as who wants to go to a place where there is no bars or walls
>>between you and that multi-murderer next door. I vote we just leave them
>>there as they have forfeited their right to have anything that society can
>>provide for them. No gaurds, no doctors, no tvs, no electricity, no guns,
>>nothing, just a picket to make sure no-one gets in with a method to get
>>out and who cares if they get overcrowded.

>#define flame=TRUE;

>This system of exile doesn't work to well.  It is actually more humane under
>current societal rules to execute by lethal injection.  To kill quickly

Allright, we'll give them a choice exile or death penalty!

>is far more merciful than to force these people to be tortured.  Torture
>is exactly what you are condemning these people to.  Does that make you
>happy?  How can you justify having a society which is suppossed to protect
>all persons, animals, and the enviornment, deliberately attempt to inflict
>needless pain on an individual?  As they are not going to escape, this
>existance you have condemned them to includes massive death as food

On the contrary, I'd like to think that they could work together form their
own government, begin agriculture, if they can't, well bad luck. These
people have forfeited their right to societies protection via trying
(whether successfully or unsuccessfully) to remove the rights of some other
person without provocation. They are likely to do it again and encourage
others to do it, for societies protection they must be removed.

>runs out.  By corrollary, how can you justify not punishing these people?
>Prison as it is a fairly dull confinement which does not genuinely punish
>the offenders.  See the statistics on how often a repeat offender occurred
>under puritan rule.  They certainly had an effective punishment.

Unfortunately, jail, though probably a pretty nasty place, is like a club
for criminals where they can discuss techniques, future plans and spread
their life philosophies to inmates.
>#define flame=FALSE;

>Punishment requires three components.  As those who have read Heinlein
>know, the puppy must be scolded, have its nose rubbed, and be spanked.
>This translates to:
>Nose rubbing:  The entire public must be made aware of the criminal.  This
>uses the individual's shame to create an incentive for change.  It also
>helps protect society against further crimes by the individual.

This is on the assumption that criminal agrees that that what they did is
wrong.

>Scolding: The individual must be made to understand what it is the person
>is being punished for, so they know that that behavior is unacceptable.
>It lets them further know that they have failed to fulfill their responsiblity
>as members of society.

You're talking about someone who has raped an innocent woman who just wanted
to walk down a street or watch TV at home or someone who has murdered
someone, ended their life, made sure they could not enjoy one more moment of
existance. These people know full well that murder and rape is bad, but they
have shown that in certain unmitigating circumstances they are not capable
of stopping themselves committing such abominable travesties.

>Spanking: The individual must be punished.  This is where the _American_
>system fails so miserably.  Other countries have other systems for certain
>crimes that are very effective.  Try looking at the drunk driving laws
>in France or Sweden.  Now tell me that someone in that country will DWI
>more than once.  The purpose behind the spanking is to keep the individual
>from doing the crime again.  (Or rather, the entire punishment.)  If the
>punishment becomes routine (as prison has become for so many people), it
>loses its meaning.  Think out the logical conclusions, you should see
>where this leads.  Or if you don't, READ!
>:)M^2

I don't beleive in punishment, I beleive in removing the threat to society
and justifying it by saying that the criminal had a choice of whether or not
they wanted to keep their rights to the benefits of our society but chose
not to maintain them and instead commit a violent act against another human
being who feels they have rights to a secure passage through life.
Constantly, the rights of the victim are forgotten. They have already been
punished for no reason, the criminal, poor bugger, has rights that they were
so willing to remove from innocents and we must never, never remove them,
no! Our society through a myriad of influences (mostly economical,
religious, and political) is going down the flush and this is one of the
very minor ways that we must change radically or it will be too late and
anarchy, starvation, and "might is right" philosophies will prevail.

Jeff.