What Is "Justice"?

[Radical_Dreamer]

It would seem more societally efficient to me that a murderer should be put to work forever purely for the benefit of others rather than be offed through execution.

What if mandatory organ donation was imposed on all individuals on death row?

How confident are you in the justice of the death penalty? Hell, we presently have Scalia and Thompson arguing that it is just and proper to execute an innocent man.

Side question: Why just death row inmates? If we're going to take the step of assuming state or societal custody of cadavers, why not use every suitable corpse for organ donation, scientific research, or if nothing else fertilizer?

[GenesisOne]

It would seem more societally efficient to me that a murderer should be put to work forever purely for the benefit of others rather than be offed through execution.

I have to disagree, Mister Wolf.  I believe that the death penalty is the most proper form of justice given to a murderer because, well, he took something that cannot be given back, and no amount of community and social service will ever amend his actions.  Besides, the cost alone to house him, feed him, and perpetuate his activities is nonsensical in itself.  Why should my tax dollars be used to keep a murderer alive?

I argue that the death penalty doesn't degrade the value of human life, but instead affirms its value.  Think about it.  Can a rapist give back the virginity of the woman he raped?  Can a murderer give back the life of the person he killed?  Can Squeenix give back those five years they took from the CE team with their C&D Letter?

No, no, and no.  By sentencing a murderer or rapist with anything less than what they have committed, we are simply degrading the value of the victims.  In the case of the murder victim, his or her life means less than the killer who, while sentenced to life-long community service, still gets to live.  See what I'm getting at?

As such, it is my personal belief that the death penalty should be more fully applied to such offenders, not only because it's more cost effective, but also because it affirms the value of the victims of their heinous crimes.

Anyways, that's my view of it.  What says you?

[FaustWolf]

Well, hey, if we cut 'em up into little pieces and distribute them to people who need those pieces, that solves both problems, doesn't it? You get your life reaping, I get my value extraction, and budda bing! Everyone walks away happy.  
 
But on a more serious note, I think Genesis brings up an excellent point about the valuing of the victim. This is exactly why I once supported the death penalty, before I started considering the possible extraction of value from criminals. On a philosophical level it probably depends on whether the cost (in terms of lost work) of offing the criminal exceeds the perceived benefit of dealing out life-ending punishment, i.e., honoring the victim(s) in cases of murder, violent rape, and whatever other crimes we currently inflict the death penalty for.

Why just death row inmates? If we're going to take the step of assuming state or societal custody of cadavers, why not use every suitable corpse for organ donation, scientific research, or if nothing else fertilizer?

The way I'm reasoning this to agree with Thought's proposal, it's because criminals, as a matter of fact, are treated differently from non-criminal individuals. We have a right to liberty but we take that away from criminals in virtually all cases; even if we just slap a tracking device on them, we have removed some measure of freedom. If the criminal is placed on probation and given virtually full freedom, now that's something I can't apply that reasoning to.

Thought's proposal represents an extension of loss of freedom from "freedom of movement" to "bodily freedom." The punishment becomes more invasive, and doesn't really even have to involve death; we could, for example, force the removal of a kidney or lung from a death row inmate, which doesn't necessarily entail death. Consider it a compromise between life in prison and the death penalty. Although the question will hopefully be practically moot soon thanks to stem cell research, were this the 1950s, I think it would be an important thing to consider. Perhaps hundreds of non-criminal people's lives could have been saved if this had been implemented back then.

[Thought]

The way I'm reasoning this to agree with Thought's proposal...

Just to note, Thought may not agree with Thought's proposal. Your comments just happened to coincide with an episode of House (Season 2, "Sex Kills") that gave me the fundamental idea. I haven't really had time to fully think it out yet to decide if I support it.

How confident are you in the justice of the death penalty? Hell, we presently have Scalia and Thompson arguing that it is just and proper to execute an innocent man.

Side question: Why just death row inmates? If we're going to take the step of assuming state or societal custody of cadavers, why not use every suitable corpse for organ donation, scientific research, or if nothing else fertilizer?

Your first question is a bit of a red herring. I made no comment on the justice of the death penalty, just that if we are basing justice on extracted value, and if organs are valuable, then the extraction of organs from a dead criminal could be just. It is taking it as a given that the death penalty is just since that is the way the system currently works. If separate arguments show that it is not just, then that becomes a relevant question.

As for the second series of questions, Faust basically hit it on the head. Criminals have their rights restricted and revoked depending on crime. Non-criminals are not so treated. Though reasonably this would probably have to be a special circumstance defined at sentencing, rather than across the board.

Besides, the cost alone to house him, feed him, and perpetuate his activities is nonsensical in itself.  Why should my tax dollars be used to keep a murderer alive?

You are assuming that it costs more to keep a murderer alive than to kill him, which is not correct. Given the legal fees incurred by the justice system and various other expenses, it is usually cheaper to keep them alive.

[Boo the Gentleman Caller]

I have a hard time with the death penalty, because once put to death, they have no hope for grace or redemption.

I read a book several years ago called "The Stranger" by Albert Camus and it totally threw the way I viewed the death penalty for a loop. I didn't agree with many of the existential themes of the book, but it unintentionally changed the way I thought about the death penalty. It's hard to put my finger on it, but that book did a lot for me.  As such, my personal belief is that justice is rarely justice - the concept of the worldview changes everything.

[FaustWolf]

I'll have to read that sometime Boo -- The Plague by Camus was interesting and had an anti-death penalty overtone although that wasn't the focus as I recall. Dead Man Walking would be an interesting read too, because it's anti-death penalty from a religious perspective (Prejean was a nun I think).

[GenesisOne]

Well, Thought, if indeed it is cheaper to keep a murderer alive than to execute him, it doesn't change the fact that my tax dollars are still being used to keep him alive.  After all, he killed his victim for free.

I mean, assuming that my tax dollars are going toward his life-sentence, housing, food, activities, etc., it just means that I'm intrinsically placing more value on the murderer's life than that of his victim(s). That is why I find it to be nonsensical.

[Radical_Dreamer]

Since when is the spending of your tax dollars an indication of your values?

And since execution is more expensive, wouldn't executing a criminal be spending more of your tax money on them, and thus, by your logic, indicating that you value their life even more than if less money was going in to keeping them alive?

[GenesisOne]

Um... Charity donations? Relief funds for earthquake & tsunami victims? The food I buy at my local grocery store?  All of these involve my money (the latter including my tax dollars) are an indication of my values and the values of those I donate to and buy my food from.

Every purchase you make, every dollar you donate is an indication of who and what you value.  Buying from a specific grocery store every time means you most likely value their goods (or their services) over those of other competing grocery stores. 

Donating to charities and relief funds indicate that I value the lives of those in poverty or who have just lost everything they had.  Since I can't help them out physically over there, my donations can.

Having my tax dollars paid to house a murderer, in essence, means that I must value the murderer more than the victim (or the family of the victim), and that to me is a misuse of my values with my tax dollars imposed by the state and federal government.

"[The] cost is not inherent in the [death] penalty, but imposed by judges. It is not cheaper to keep a criminal confined, because most of the time he will appeal just as much causing as many costs as a convict under death sentence. Being alive and having nothing better to do, he will spend his time in prison conceiving of ever-new habeas corpus petitions, which being unlimited, in effect cannot be rejected as res judicata. The cost is higher."

[Lord J Esq]

Big fallacy here, GenesisOne, comparing private expenditures with your taxes. Paying your taxes is an indication that you value our system of governance and the services and protections which government provides. It is not a commentary on specific expenditures. To make those kinds of comments, you wield your vote. RD's question is completely legitimate, and you evaded it completely.

[GenesisOne]

Lord J, I do believe I made myself clear when I separated my private expenditures from spending my tax dollars (e.g. buying groceries).

By the way, could you name the specific fallacy which I just committed?  If not, isn't that an unfair accusation?  If so, then perhaps you could provide an answer which was more merit.

[Lord J Esq]

The fallacy in question is typically referred to as a false analogy or false comparison. In this case you made the argument that, as your private expenditures are an indication of your priorities, so too are your tax returns. They are, but only inasmuch as they indicate your support of our system of government, as tax returns are a legal obligation.

[Radical_Dreamer]

Since when is the spending of your tax dollars an indication of your values?

Um... Charity donations?

This is not an answer to my question. I honestly want to know why you think that the expenditure of tax money is a reflection of your personal values (beyond the given example of support for our system of government). I have never encountered such an assertion before, and I'd like to know how you came to this conclusion.

[GenesisOne]

In that case, Radical_Dreamer, I haven't an answer for you.  I honestly don't.

If indeed my conclusion was arrived at from an off-beat approach, then perhaps the premise I'm simply trying to answer is: Why should the death penalty be more expensive than LWOP?

[Lord J Esq]

Ah, the silence of defeat. I'm detecting a pattern from you, GenesisOne. No response on global warming, and now no response on your logical fallacy. A more gracious person would have offered at least a cursory acknowledgment, but I suppose I must take what I can get in that at least you've got enough sense to shush up when cornered, unlike certain folks in the Truthordeal mold who just prattle on no matter what.