The nature of good and evil

[Dark Virtue]

Defending one's country isn't "good"?  I guess you consider it a necessary "evil" then.

Quote[/b] ]A better question would be this: is it moral to kill immoral/amoral people?

I live in Texas, so the answer to this is a quick YES, there are times when it is moral to kill people.

It's called the Death Penalty.

 

[Jim]

The death penalty seems a little immoral to me. Granted, some people just really need to be 'removed' for other's safety.

My main qualm about it is if an innocent person was wrongly accused. It saddens me to imagine what it must feel like to know you are going to die for something you didn't do.

Anyhow, I think it is immoral. If DV decides to argue with me, I think I'll break down.

 

[Jim]

Quote[/b] ] EU. I was under the impression that it was NOT a popular decision.

That's true. But I don't see what the EU has to do with morals?

 

[Dark Virtue]

Badger boy brought up the EU thing to show how all countries were going to eventually unite into one government. I really don't see that happening. Besides, this smacks too much of a "global conspiracy" thing.

I don't believe the death penalty is immoral, I support it fully, I think it needs to be used more often. Is it fullproof, no it's not. NOTHING about our judicial system is. But I am a firm proponent in letting the punishment fit the crime.

 

[Mr.Bill]

Quote[/b] (Dark Virtue @ Oct. 01 2004,10:54)]Defending one's country isn't "good"?  I guess you consider it a necessary "evil" then.

Quote[/b] ]A better question would be this: is it moral to kill immoral/amoral people?

I live in Texas, so the answer to this is a quick YES, there are times when it is moral to kill people.

It's called the Death Penalty.

Oo, a liberal Texan. You poor soul. : )

Honestly I don't know what to call it, but yes, it would be something closer to a necessary 'evil' than 'good.'

As for the death penalty, because I do not believe that the country to which one has citizenship to owns your life. Thus, it cannot end it when you have 'broken the rules'. I don't think it's necessarily moral to kill immoral people..for that would be in effect making you immoral as well. So long as you do it for the right reasons, like to stop them from dealing out more death to moral people, then that makes sense. But in general, I believe that killing should be avoided at all concievable costs. More than anything else, killing should be avoided. Thus, the death penalty is different, because you don't have to kill them to stop them from killing.

 

[Mr.Bill]

Quote[/b] (Dark Virtue @ Oct. 01 2004,12:15)]Badger boy brought up the EU thing to show how all countries were going to eventually unite into one government.  I really don't see that happening.  Besides, this smacks too much of a "global conspiracy" thing.

Don't you think that a globally united society would be ideal? Granted, this would of course be extrememly difficult, and would not happen for perhaps centuries, but I think, I hope that people will eventually see the advantages of joining together. A much more positive relationship between peoples would result.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Again, I happen to support the ideal of letting the punishment fit the crime.

Putting someone in prison, shelter, ac, cable tv, 3 square meals a day, is that sufficient punishment for taking someone's life?

 

[Thaddius]

Quote[/b] ]I live in Texas

Where in Texas? I grew up in Andrews (near Odessa/Midland) and I want to move to Dallas or Austin ^_^ I miss Texas...

Cory

 

[Dark Virtue]

I'm in Houston, I have relatives in Austin though. WAY too expensive to live there. And Dallas is, well Dallas

 

[Thaddius]

Only 2 reasons I want to live in Dallas.

<------ is #1.

Family is only 5 hours from there is #2.

Cory

 

[Jim]

Quote[/b] ]Derek Bentley (aged 19) and Christopher Craig (aged 16) broke into a London warehouse on 2 November 1952. Craig was armed with a revolver. The 2 youths were seen entering the premises and the police were called. Bentley and Craig then went on to the flat roof of the building (Barlow & Parker's Warehouse, Tanworth Road, Croydon) and hid behind a lift-housing.

Detective Sergeant Frederick Fairfax climbed on to the roof, and managed to grab Bentley. Craig shouted defiantly at the detective and Bentley managed to break Fairfax's grip. At this point, Bentley is supposed to have shouted "Let him have it Chris". Craig then fired the gun grazing the police officer's shoulder. Despite being wounded Fairfax continued after Bentley and managed to finally arrest him. Bentley told Fairfax that Craig had a Colt .45 and plenty of ammunition.

Following the arrival of more police officers, a group were sent on to the roof. The first policeman to appear on to the roof was Police Constable Sidney George Miles (age 42). He was immediately shot dead by Craig; being hit in the head. After exhausting his supply of ammunition, Craig leapt from the roof on to the road 30 feet below. He landed badly, fracturing his spine and left wrist. Craig was then arrested.

For his gallantry in pursuing Bentley and Craig, Fairfax was awarded the George Cross. In addition Police Constables Norman Harrison (London Gazette 6 January 1953 Page 167) and James McDonald (London Gazette 6 January 1953 Page 167) were awarded the George Medal, Police Constable Robert Jaggs the British Empire Medal and Police Constable Miles was posthumously awarded the Queen's Police Medal for Gallantry.

It was clear that even if Craig was found guilty of murder, he could not be sentenced to death; being 16 he was below the minimum age of 18 for execution. However, Derek Bentley was over 18 years' of age and could be sentenced to death.

The case appeared to be a relatively simple one for the prosecution. However, as the trial progressed before Lord Chief Justice Lord Goddard at the Old Bailey, the prosecution case appeared far less certain. The police seemed unsure how many shots were fired and by whom. A ballistics expert failed to positively identify Craig's gun as the weapon that fired the bullet that killed PC Miles. Also what was meant by Bentley's phrase "Let him have it Chris"? Did he mean that Craig was to give the gun to the officer and surrender? Did he mean that Craig was indeed to shot the officer?

What was clear was that Derek Bentley was illiterate and mentally subnormal. He was ill prepared to undergo cross-examination and did not present a 'good image' to the jury; not surprising considering his mental age of 11.

The jury took just 75 minutes to find both Craig and Bentley guilty of PC Miles' murder. Due to his being below 18 at the time of the offence, Craig was sentenced to being detained at Her Majesty's Pleasure. Bentley was sentenced to death.

Various appeals highlighted the ambiguous evidence, Bentley's mental age and the fact that he did not fire the fatal shot, were all rejected by the then Home Secretary.

On 28 January 1953, Derek Bentley was hanged at London's Wandsworth Prison.

Christopher Craig served 10 years in prison before being released.

Since Bentley's execution in January 1953, there have been numerous campaigns to obtain a posthumous pardon for Bentley. In 1991 observers were surprised when the Home Secretary of the time, Kenneth Clark, rejected a report by the Metropolitan Police stating that there were "reasonable doubts in this case" for a review.

However, on 30 July 1998, the Court of Appeal overturned the controversial conviction of Derek Bentley who was hanged for the murder of a policeman over 45 years ago. In an unprecedented and very damning attack, the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham, ruled that his predecessor and Bentley's trial judge, Lord Chief Justice Goddard, had denied Bentley "that fair trial that is the birthright of every British citizen." In a 52-page judgment, Lord Bingham placed the blame for the miscarriage of justice with Lord Goddard. Describing Lord Goddard as "blatantly prejudiced", Lord Bingham concluded that he had misdirected the jury and that in his summing-up had put unfair pressure on the jury to convict.

The Derek Bentley site gives a very detailed account of the case including background material. It also includes various accounts about the campaign to overthrow the conviction.

Taken from here.

I can understand a great deal of why people think, 'Why should scum milk my taxes for killing and get free amenities in jail?' Indeed, there is talk of bringing back hanging in the UK.

I know enough about you DV to know that it would take a truck of C4 to shift you. Not that I want to. You are a reasonable person. I just don't agree, that's all.

To each his own, I guess.

 

[Dark Virtue]

It takes a lot less than a truck load of c4.

How about a convincing argument?

As I have stated before, the legal system is far from perfect. Do I agree with the above sentences? No, I do not. There were many mistakes made. I think if the crime were committed today the outcome would have been different. I don't know about the UK, but in the US it is possible for a minor to be tried as an adult. Craig would have been sentenced to death (in death penalty states). Not only did he fire on police, but he killed on, shot through the head. In your estimation, what is the correct punishment for that?

 

[Jim]

The thing about the case was that not only was the boy in mitigating circumstances (He said "let him have it!" Which could be interpreted as either 'Kill him!' or 'Let him have [the gun]!')

Also, he was mentally retarded. In this case, he was hanged for shouting something which was most likely not an aggressive intention (He gave up without a fight remember?) And the fact that he was NOT ACTUALLY THE ONE WHO FIRED. Given his mental age, essentially they hung an eleven year old child for an ambiguous outburst.

Not only that, but it was proven the bullet that killed the policeman was NOT from the Colt 45. but from a police-issue pistol. That and the fact there were conflicting stories; the policeman was shot in the back, but witnesses swore he was shot from the front.

All this combined to create a case that was full of errors. An incompetent jury combined with a prejudiced Judge made matters worse.

Do you want me to look up other examples? More to the point, should this become a new thread?

I look forward to arguing with you.

 

[Dark Virtue]

No no, no need

I think we are in agreement here, there are many things that can go wrong in a capital offense case.

What is the alternative though?

(watch me steer this back on track)

Who are what determines what is adequate suffiecient punishment? What is morally acceptable punishment? What about a deterrant for future potential criminals?

 

[Dark Virtue]

This might help:

Quote[/b] ]Morality is defined as "the principles of right and wrong." As moral creatures, humans deserve praise for good deeds, and punishment for bad ones. Punishment may range from a slap on the wrist to death, but the punishment must fit the crime. This is known as lex talionis, or in common jargon, "an eye for an eye." Abolitionists often insist that if we argue for lex talion justice we must be prepared to rape rapists, beat sadists, and burn down the houses of arsonists. Certainly, this is the case if we take the lex talion literally, and the criminals do deserve those punishments, but we needn't take it literally. The ancient Jews did not.2 They allowed for monetary compensation for physical or property damage.


Why then, if it is not morally okay to rape rapists, is it acceptable to execute murderers? The answer is simple. There is no redeeming value to carrying out the former punishment. Raping the rapist will only cause someone else to degrade themselves by doing it. It will not prevent the rapist from raping again. Executing murderers, however, prevents them from committing their crime again, and thus protects innocent victims. The good, therefore, outweighs the bad, and the executioner is morally justified in taking the murderer's life. On the other hand, if the abolitionist argues that killing is always wrong, then he must also concede that killing in self-defense is unacceptable and should be punished. Few, if any, however, are willing to do so. The abolitionist may choose to argue that the state should never kill. But consider also the scenario of protecting someone else's life. Are police officers (the state) justified in killing attempted murderers to save a victim's life? If the answer to this question is yes, then no moral arguments will stand up against the death penalty.


Morally, it is wrong to incarcerate someone for murder. A sentence of life in an air-conditioned, cable-equipped prison where a person gets free meals three times a day, personal recreation time, and regular visits with friends and family3 is a slap in the face of morality. People will say here that not all prisons are like the one cited. This betrays an ignorance, however, of current trends. Eventually, criminal rights activists will see to it that all prisons are nice places to go. But regardless of the conditions of a particular prison, someone who murders another human being can only be made to pay for his actions by forfeiting his own life. This is so, simply because a loss of freedom does not and cannot compare to a loss of life. If the punishment for theft is imprisonment, then the punishment for murder must be exponentially more severe, because human life is infinitely more valuable than any material item.

LINK

Here's a related video.

 

[Jim]

If I might make an assumption?

The point you presented before, that why should a murderer be given free ameneties for a crime like taking a life, makes sense to me. I'm not saying murderers deserve to live in conditions of that kind.

I can see where we agree: That innocents should not be killed by accident. However, I can also see your point: What alternative is there?

I have to be honest; I honestly cannot think of any real alternative. Besides life imprisonment, which we have already agreed is unfair, since they will be recieving more than many law-abiding citizens do, there isn't an awful lot else besides execution.

Hmm. But where I believe we disagree is what comes first; the morality of punishing a deserving criminal or the morality of accidently killing an undeserving innocent.

I tried looking at that video, but I couldn't get it to work for some reason. The other link was useful, so thank you.

A few points:

Quote[/b] ]There is absolutely no proof for this statement. Before any person is executed in this country, twelve members of a carefully selected jury have to decide -- beyond a reasonable doubt -- that a defendant is guilty. The possibility of an innocent person being executed is extremely small, and continues to decrease with the improvement of forensic science. It is true that death row prisoners have been released, but it is not true that they were innocent.

This is in fact untrue. There are a great many cases of people being found innocent after being executed, or at least finding that key evidence was inadmissable, or the person had good grounds for aquittal.

Quote[/b] ]The death penalty as a deterrent to crime is not the issue. Capital punishment is, pardon the redundancy, a punishment for crime. As a punishment, the death penalty is 100% effective--every time it is used, the prisoner dies.

The rest of this paragraph puts the point across that the death penalty stops the offender re-offending. However, it says nothing of wether it affects the outside world and actually reduces the chances of killing in the wider region, state or country. When hanging was abolished over here, there was a huge outcry. There were predictions that murder would shoot up, as there would no longer be a detterent. It didn't. Murder rates stayed pretty much the same.

Quote[/b] ]5. The death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment.
The death penalty is not cruel and unusual punishment. The framers of the Constitution supported the death penalty, and in fact constructed laws in order to carry it out, so it is ridiculous to claim that cruel and unusual punishment refers to the death penalty. Justice Antonin Scalia observed,

While I agree that the law suggests that execution should not be cruel or barbaric, it doesn't stop some methods from being quite terrifying.

The gas chamber, for example. It can take up to fifteen minutes to die, during which time the prisoner will be gasping and choking (during panic, it would not be possible for the person to breathe deeply, thereby accelerating their death and expediating their release from the pain).

I agree that victims come first. Where I belive that we differ is where we place our priorities. I believe that the lives of innocent people should be tantamount. What's the point of a punishment when a guilty person gets off scot free when an innocent person dies as a result?

Tell me if I got my assumption right.

 

[Dark Virtue]

You are absolutely 100% on the money.

If we put the innocents first, shouldn't we then increase the punishments for offenders?

I wish we could break free of this political correctness crap we have buried ourselves under and reinvent our punishment system. If you're a murderer, you will be put to death. If you are a rapist, you will be castrated. If you are a theif, you will have your hand cut off. Etc, etc.

I know, I know, that's very black and white so that won't work in every situation.

I don't know about the UK, but murder here has many different levels. 1st Degree, 2nd Degree, 3rd Degree, Manslaughter, etc. Execution is only reserved for 1st degree offenders, those that included premeditation. Theft is another issue. If you're stealing to feed your kids, that's very different from mugging some old lady to feed your crack habit.

The problem here is that our punishments do not fit the crimes we try to punish. Our punishments offer NO deterrants to future criminals. Do we have to go so far as to show executions and castrations on pay per view?

Cruel and unusual is something that needs to be revamped too. Cruel and unusual defines the CRIME, it shouldn't define the punishment.

Yes, moral balance is difficult when we talk about crime and punishment, but keep one thing in mind...once you commit a crime, you give up ALL rights as a citizen. You forfeited them when you commited a crime. Sure, you may be sorry, you may feel regret for your crime, but that doesn't mean your "I'm sorry" gets you out of punishment.

 

[Thaddius]

What are the statistics of innocents exocuted (or people found out later to be found innocent) compared to those who are actually guilty of the crime that are exocuted? You guys are both guys of science so you should realize that in any form of punishment there will exceptions. Guilty people set free, innocents incarcerated. I guess the question is at what point do we deem it acceptable or unacceptable forms of punishment for criminals?


(this might have been already answered, I have not read the whole thread yet. If so, I apologize.)
Cory

 

[Dark Virtue]

Don't worry Thaddius, we haven't gone over stats.

I'm doing this off the top of my head from things I looked at this afternoon, so if anyone has more concrete stats they want to offer up, go for it.

Since 1900 5% of those executed were found to be innocent.

This is the balancing act that I spoke of. We, as a society, need to punish our criminals. No punishment isn't an acceptable option. The problem enters when innocent people are accused and punished. I honestly do not see any option here. Is it an acceptable risk? Unfortunately, yes, it is. What else are we supposed to do?

 

[Jim]

Quote[/b] ]If we put the innocents first, shouldn't we then increase the punishments for offenders?

Yes, but it begs the question: is that criminal really the right guy? As Thaddius mentioned, when do innocent deaths stop being an exception and start being too many?

Quote[/b] ]I wish we could break free of this political correctness crap we have buried ourselves under and reinvent our punishment system. If you're a murderer, you will be put to death. If you are a rapist, you will be castrated. If you are a theif, you will have your hand cut off. Etc, etc.

**Sigh** I agree. Sometimes, political correctness is bothersome and wholly misguided. But a thief getting their hand chopped off? That seems a little extreme. Isn't that the kind of punishments they have in the middle east, alongside beheading?

Yes, you say a person steals to feed their family. But once again, what if that person is WRONGLY accused? The possibilities is amputation for a crime that was necessary to keep your family alive, or even for something you didn't actually do. What about shoplifting? I know a few guys who were wrongly accused of shoplifting. What kind of situation of stealing did you have in mind?

Quote[/b] ]I don't know about the UK, but murder here has many different levels. 1st Degree, 2nd Degree, 3rd Degree, Manslaughter, etc. Execution is only reserved for 1st degree offenders, those that included premeditation. Theft is another issue. If you're stealing to feed your kids, that's very different from mugging some old lady to feed your crack habit.

Could you tell me about the 1st, 2nd degree etc? I don't know the difference except that first is more severe than second and so on.

Mugging and onld lady to feed a crack habit... It depends on the circumstances. I read once about these two teenagers about nineteen. A guy and a girl who was pregnant with the guys child,. They were both crack addicts and they murdered an innocent guy walking home with his pay-packet from his part time job at a mechanics. They didn't even care what they did, as long as they got the guy's £30. Then they went off, bought crack and smooched. I seriously thought they should have hung.

You may already be thinking "This guy is a liberal". Well, to put it bluntly, if anything covers me better it is that. Some crack addicts are simply confused kids press-ganged into trying the stuff to impress or to fit in. They end up hooked, sell their stuff and end up stealing to feed it. I can't say how I'd react since I've never had a craving for anything like that. But someone like that deserves at least some sympathy.

Quote[/b] ]The problem here is that our punishments do not fit the crimes we try to punish. Our punishments offer NO deterrants to future criminals. Do we have to go so far as to show executions and castrations on pay per view?

Once again, I sympathise. If you had the opportunity to read the Daily Express as I do, you would get to know that people in the UK are fed up with lenient punishments. But I digress, currently I haven't seen much proof for executions cutting outside crime rates, besides stopping the offenders re-offending. I believe this is still an area where anti-capital punishment lobbyists press home with.

Quote[/b] ]Cruel and unusual is something that needs to be revamped too. Cruel and unusual defines the CRIME, it shouldn't define the punishment.

I'm sorry, could you clarify your point?

Quote[/b] ]Yes, moral balance is difficult when we talk about crime and punishment, but keep one thing in mind...once you commit a crime, you give up ALL rights as a citizen. You forfeited them when you commited a crime. Sure, you may be sorry, you may feel regret for your crime, but that doesn't mean your "I'm sorry" gets you out of punishment.

I agree on only some crimes. Rape, especially child rape and paedohillia, sadistic murder and unprovoked murder, the list goes on. I'm interested to know where you would draw the line?