Flaws in retributive arguments for the death penalty
Euroguy
foundational matter of justice, criminals deserve punishment, and (b)
punishment should be equal to the harm done. In determining what counts as
"punishment equal to harm," theorists further distinguish between two types
of retributive punishment. First, lex talionis retribution involves
punishment in kind and is commonly expressed in the expression "an eye for
an eye." Second, lex salica retribution involves punishment through
compensation, and the harm inflicted can be repaired by payment or
atonement. Historically, capital punishment is most often associated with
lex talionis retribution. One of the most early written statements of
capital punishment from the lex talionis or "eye for an eye" perspective is
from the 18th century BC Babylonian Law of Hammurabi:
"If a builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct it
properly,
and the house which he built falls in and kills its owner, then that
builder shall
be put to death. If it kills the son of the owner, then the son of
that builder shall
be put to death. "
Critics of classic lex talionis-oriented capital punishment point out
several problems with this view.
First, as a practical matter, lex talionis retribution cannot be uniformly
applied to every harm committed. The second sentence in the above quote from
the Law of Hammurabi shows the inherent absurdity of consistent application:
"If it [i.e., a collapsed house] kills the son of the owner, then the son of
the builder shall be put to death."
Second, as a strict formula of retribution, lex talionis punishment may even
be inadequate. For example, if a terrorist or mass murderer kills ten
people, then taking his single life is technically not punishment in kind.
Third, foundational beliefs in general have the unfortunate consequence of
appearing arbitrary. If a belief in lex talionis retribution is
foundational, then, by definition, it cannot be defended by appealing to a
prior set of reasons. The arbitrary nature of this is particularly clear
when we see that there is an alternative retributive view of punishment
which is equally foundational, yet which does not require capital
punishment, namely lex salica retribution.
Finally, critics of capital punishment argue that the true basis of
retributive justifications of capital punishment is not at all foundational,
but instead rooted in psychological feelings of vengeance. Even if we grant
that vengeance is a natural human emotion, critics argue that it is an
impulse which should be tempered, just as we do natural feelings of fear,
lust, and greed. Laws about punishment, then, should not be grounded in our
extreme feelings, but should instead be based on our more tempered ones.
When we moderate our natural feelings of vengeance, there should be little
inclination to execute criminals.
Immanual Kant offered an alternative retributive justification of capital
punishment which is not rooted in vengeance. Instead, for Kant, capital
punishment is based on the idea that every person is a valuable and worthy
of respect because of their ability to make rational and free choices. The
murder, too, is worthy of respect; we, thus, show him respect by treating
him the same way he declares that people are to be treated. Accordingly, we
execute the murderer. A key problem with Kant's justification of capital
punishment is that it tells us what to do with only ideally rational
killers, although most killers are actually not rational and most killings
are not rationally implemented.
Euro
A Planet Visitor
As in his other arguments in the three posts he has
provided, none of the words contained in the posts
are ACTUALLY the words of euroguy, yet he has
neglected to provide an attribution to his comments.
One wonders if euroguy is not actually a 'talking
head,' having no REAL thoughts of his own. See
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/c/capitalp.htm
We also now know that euroguy has never actually
READ Kant... nor Baccaria, nor much of anybody
but some faceless URL. He simply offers the meanings
that are related in this faceless URL, as being those of his
own. More and more, I am aware that euroguy depends
on OTHERS to express his thoughts here. And more
and more, this demonstrates the suspicion that he
also depends on his trusty CD-Rom to provide the
'proof' that he speaks 20 languages.
PV
"Euroguy" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c63e...@news1.meganetnews.com...
Exador
> PLAGIARIZE ALERT!!
>
> As in his other arguments in the three posts he has
> provided, none of the words contained in the posts
> are ACTUALLY the words of euroguy, yet he has
> neglected to provide an attribution to his comments.
> One wonders if euroguy is not actually a 'talking
> head,' having no REAL thoughts of his own. See
> http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/c/capitalp.htm
>
> We also now know that euroguy has never actually
> READ Kant... nor Baccaria, nor much of anybody
> but some faceless URL. He simply offers the meanings
> that are related in this faceless URL, as being those of his
> own. More and more, I am aware that euroguy depends
> on OTHERS to express his thoughts here. And more
> and more, this demonstrates the suspicion that he
> also depends on his trusty CD-Rom to provide the
> 'proof' that he speaks 20 languages.
Fair cop PV, but the article is interesting nonetheless. I hadn't seen
Kant's defence of retributive justice as an act of respect for reason
previously. It's pure cant of course. :-) (sorry)
Exador
This is precisely my argument. "Society" is not a hot-blooded
individual, thinking only of immediate gratification of an emotional
drive. It is a collection of people, some of whom are set the task of
rationally framing laws to apply to all. If those lawmakers enact laws
based on their own emotional drives, they have failed in their task.
> Immanual Kant offered an alternative retributive justification of capital
> punishment which is not rooted in vengeance. Instead, for Kant, capital
> punishment is based on the idea that every person is a valuable and worthy
> of respect because of their ability to make rational and free choices. The
> murder, too, is worthy of respect; we, thus, show him respect by treating
> him the same way he declares that people are to be treated. Accordingly, we
> execute the murderer. A key problem with Kant's justification of capital
> punishment is that it tells us what to do with only ideally rational
> killers, although most killers are actually not rational and most killings
> are not rationally implemented.
I don't recall this from Kant, although it is a fairly obvious, if
extreme, conclusion from his foundational arguments. The obvious problem
with Kant is that Man never was a creature of pure reason. That's why we
have laws in the first place.
Cheers,
Craig
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
wrote:
> Fair cop PV, but the article is interesting nonetheless. I hadn't seen
> Kant's defence of retributive justice as an act of respect for reason
> previously. It's pure cant of course. :-) (sorry)
I first encountered it comparatively recently. It fits in with what
little Kant I've read. Was at the pub and one of the bloody Philosophy
Ph.D. students in our little group started rabbitting (sp?) on about
"rational beings" and similar toss. I, of course, questioned the notion
that humans actually _are_ rational beings. Came up with something
convincing but I can't remember exactly what. The words "objective" and
"morality" were uttered (not by me) and I waffled on about the fraught
notion of aesthetics and how that puts a hole in any objective absolute
yada yada yada.
The DP, of course, didn't get a look-in as I only drink with the Labor
Left or those who are sympathetic towards its ideals. =)
Mr Q. Z. D.
--
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"My parents always told me I could be what I wanted to be. ((o))
So I became a complete bastard." ((O))
Euroguy
Your "discovery" is of little interest. I have been posting those articles
more than 10 times, and I did mention the source each time. Like Sharp, I do
recycle some postings I consider as interesting. It is the first time I send
this article in 3 parts - which, I think, are more manageable for everyone.
And, true enough, I omitted to copy the source on each of the postings.
When I copy articles, it is because I broadly subscribe their ideas and I
think they are very pertinent. I do write articles on my own, besides this,
and I repost them occasionally.
Whether I "plagiarize" or not is of little interest for everyone here. What
matters is the contribution brought to the debate. I wish you could at least
send interesting stuff, even from another source. This would prevent you
from launching hopeless personal attacks or giving uninteresting comments on
the Olympic Games opening ceremony.
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com>
??????:UKV88.28587$Gb1.6...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
A Planet Visitor
> PV
>
> Your "discovery" is of little interest. I have been posting those articles
> more than 10 times, and I did mention the source each time.
Since I cannot believe you, having caught you in so many
lies in the past, I did a search on Google for your handle
in this group, with the subject containing "Flaws in."
Guess what? I find you posted the same shit one time
before, a few days ago, and did NOT attribute your comment
to anyone then, either. That was it... nada. So perhaps
you can state WHEN and WHERE you posted those
comments before where you attributed a source. Thank
you...
> Like Sharp, I do
> recycle some postings I consider as interesting. It is the first time I send
> this article in 3 parts - which, I think, are more manageable for everyone.
> And, true enough, I omitted to copy the source on each of the postings.
>
I think you'll find that Sharp attributes his sources 100%
of the time. Since posters here find little in Sharp's comments
that are not from independent sources.
> When I copy articles, it is because I broadly subscribe their ideas and I
> think they are very pertinent. I do write articles on my own, besides this,
> and I repost them occasionally.
That doesn't demonstrate that you can formulate an independent
and original thought... does it? That's essentially what Usenet
is about. I could post articles EVERY DAY of those who
murder. So what???
>
> Whether I "plagiarize" or not is of little interest for everyone here. What
> matters is the contribution brought to the debate. I wish you could at least
> send interesting stuff, even from another source. This would prevent you
> from launching hopeless personal attacks or giving uninteresting comments on
> the Olympic Games opening ceremony.
>
Don't be stupid. Whether you plagiarize or not, is of great
interest, because it demonstrates you do not have an
original thought in your head.
PV