From: mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough)
Subject: Re: morality????????
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Date: 6 Nov 92 00:07:37 CST

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
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
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.

#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.
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.
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
>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism