Evil

[Brian Peacock]

[devilsadvocate]

Our society is fragile. It needs nurturing and protecting from those who would undermine our great project. A project that, if successful, will ensure the future security and and well-being of everybody. Will you help in that noble work comrade?

[/devilsadvocate]

Would it be evil if you picked up a shovel and helped dig the hole?

[Seth]

Brian

I suggested a definition of evil a long time back, saying it was the kind of behaviour that resulted in doing terrible harm to people.

While this definition is necessarily loose, and there will be exceptions, it does help to avoid parochial justifications.

For example, it makes clear that Seth's suggestion of throwing terrorists out of a plane with no parachute is an evil suggestion. It makes clear that the death penalty is evil. Ditto torture, slavery, mutilation and so on.

Why is it evil to throw terrorists out of a plane? They need to be dead, and others need to be shown that the wages of evil are permanent, final and not particularly enjoyable. After all, their deeds are evil and therefore they have forfeited any right to humane treatment by not treating others humanely. If doing so sends a message to other terrorists that causes them to behave more rationally and peacefully, then why is it evil to do so?

Please support your argument that throwing terrorists out of aircraft is "evil."

[Blind groper]

Seth

There is no objective evidence that the death penalty is a more effective deterrent against terrorism or other crimes than life in prison. Yet the death penalty is irrevocable, and has been shown rather too often to have been done to the wrong people. Meaning innocents put to death.

It is not against terrorists specifically, but the death penalty in general that is evil. It meets the definition of an evil deed, and it cannot be justified by any rational argument. For example, it has been shown that, in the USA, bearing in mind extra legal costs, and as an overall average, that the American taxpayer pays two and a half times as much in dollars to see a felon executed, as it would cost to put him in prison for life.

I think it is kind of obvious that killing someone is doing something pretty bad to him. Since it achieves nothing over and above life imprisonment, then it cannot be justified, and meets the definition of an evil deed.

[mistermack]

Seth

There is no objective evidence that the death penalty is a more effective deterrent against terrorism or other crimes than life in prison. Yet the death penalty is irrevocable, and has been shown rather too often to have been done to the wrong people. Meaning innocents put to death.

It is not against terrorists specifically, but the death penalty in general that is evil. It meets the definition of an evil deed, and it cannot be justified by any rational argument. For example, it has been shown that, in the USA, bearing in mind extra legal costs, and as an overall average, that the American taxpayer pays two and a half times as much in dollars to see a felon executed, as it would cost to put him in prison for life.

I think it is kind of obvious that killing someone is doing something pretty bad to him. Since it achieves nothing over and above life imprisonment, then it cannot be justified, and meets the definition of an evil deed.

The death penalty isn't evil if you KNOW that the person is guilty of a horrific crime.
But of course, how can you know?
So what's evil, isn't the death penalty. It's applying the death penalty to someone who MIGHT be innocent.

That's why I stick by my version. Keep the death penalty, but if it turns out that an innocent person was executed, then the jury and judge, and prosecutor all get executed as well.
I don't think you would get many death sentences passed, but it would be exciting.

[Blind groper]

Amusing, mistermack.
Fortunately no one is stupid enough to implement such a policy.

The logical approach to this is simply to get rid of the death penalty, in toto. No exceptions. People who would have drawn the death penalty get imprisonment for life. If it turns out that he/she is innocent, then release is appropriate, with generous financial compensation. If guilty, then lifetime imprisonment is just as nasty as a clean death.

[Seth]

Seth

There is no objective evidence that the death penalty is a more effective deterrent against terrorism or other crimes than life in prison.

Sure there is. When a terrorist is dead he (or she) can't propagandize and radicalize others in prison, he (or she) cannot escape, cannot kill someone in prison, and cannot be released some time later by bleeding-heart liberals and then return to committing acts of terrorism as so many of the Gitmo internees have done.

Death is a one-hundred percent cure for recidivism.

Yet the death penalty is irrevocable,

That's the whole point.

and has been shown rather too often to have been done to the wrong people. Meaning innocents put to death.

That's a bad thing, and precautions must be taken to minimize that risk, but it shouldn't deter the death penalty in the case of those whose guilt is incontrovertible...such as they are shooting at you on the field of battle or are on video sawing people's heads off.

It is not against terrorists specifically, but the death penalty in general that is evil.

No it's not. It's sanitation.

It meets the definition of an evil deed, and it cannot be justified by any rational argument.

Say that again when the convicted rapist murderer breaks out of prison and rapes and murders YOUR wife and daughter.

For example, it has been shown that, in the USA, bearing in mind extra legal costs, and as an overall average, that the American taxpayer pays two and a half times as much in dollars to see a felon executed, as it would cost to put him in prison for life.

That's a problem with the system, not the sentence. We choose to afford death-penalty candidates a ridiculous amount of due process so as to minimize the chances of executing an innocent person wrongfully. But when someone deserves to be put to death even after the long, laborious and expensive due process they enjoy, then they need to be put to death for reasons related to justice, not economics.

I think it is kind of obvious that killing someone is doing something pretty bad to him. Since it achieves nothing over and above life imprisonment, then it cannot be justified, and meets the definition of an evil deed.

Some people need to be killed. Usually because they are the living definition of "evil." Society is not obliged to tolerate those who initiate force against others if their guilt is proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

Since everyone dies eventually, it's not death itself that is problematic, it appears to be the timing involved that you have a problem with, or perhaps it's the effects on those who execute the sentence.

We can certainly argue about the level of proof required to levy the death penalty, but there's nothing particularly unique about the death penalty. Humans have been killing other humans since before the beginnings of humanity. So the question might as well be "why not?" as "why?"

[Seth]

Seth

There is no objective evidence that the death penalty is a more effective deterrent against terrorism or other crimes than life in prison. Yet the death penalty is irrevocable, and has been shown rather too often to have been done to the wrong people. Meaning innocents put to death.

It is not against terrorists specifically, but the death penalty in general that is evil. It meets the definition of an evil deed, and it cannot be justified by any rational argument. For example, it has been shown that, in the USA, bearing in mind extra legal costs, and as an overall average, that the American taxpayer pays two and a half times as much in dollars to see a felon executed, as it would cost to put him in prison for life.

I think it is kind of obvious that killing someone is doing something pretty bad to him. Since it achieves nothing over and above life imprisonment, then it cannot be justified, and meets the definition of an evil deed.

The death penalty isn't evil if you KNOW that the person is guilty of a horrific crime.
But of course, how can you know?
So what's evil, isn't the death penalty. It's applying the death penalty to someone who MIGHT be innocent.

That's why I stick by my version. Keep the death penalty, but if it turns out that an innocent person was executed, then the jury and judge, and prosecutor all get executed as well.
I don't think you would get many death sentences passed, but it would be exciting.

I've favored the idea that if an individual is knowingly and wrongfully prosecuted, that the prosecutor should face the same sentence he or she advocated for the defendant. The jury generally just does what it's told to do, which is why I favor mandatory notice to the jury of their right to nullify the law in the case if they believe an injustice is being perpetrated.

I'd also say that if a judge can be shown to be colluding in a deliberate wrongful prosecution, the judge should also face the same sentence as the innocent person wrongfully convicted.

[Seth]

Amusing, mistermack.
Fortunately no one is stupid enough to implement such a policy.

The logical approach to this is simply to get rid of the death penalty, in toto. No exceptions. People who would have drawn the death penalty get imprisonment for life. If it turns out that he/she is innocent, then release is appropriate, with generous financial compensation. If guilty, then lifetime imprisonment is just as nasty as a clean death.

It's not about being "nasty" it's about sanitation and safety. Not just the safety of the public, but the safety of those who must live with and guard the convict. Since bleeding-heart liberals like you would certainly say that lifetime solitary confinement with absolutely no human contact would be "cruel and unusual punishment" then every day that a justly convicted killer lives places everyone around him at risk. And no one should be required to suffer that kind of risk. Not the jailers, who are frequently assaulted and killed by lifers with nothing to lose, but to lesser criminals who are there to serve a sentence and be released who are killed by the lifers.

Death ensures that that person can never harm anyone ever again.

And then there's the argument that death is a more humane sentence than locking someone up for life, which smacks of retribution and punishment without hope of rehabilitation. For the person who has no chance of being set free even if they become rehabilitated and are no longer a danger to society, death might well be a preferable alternative. I know it would be to me.

So perhaps a compromise could be reached where each lifer's cell is provided with a built-in noose that can be used for suicide.

[Blind groper]

It is not that easy to be sure the guy you are convicting is guilty. We have a case here in NZ right now, where a guy convicted of a particularly nasty rape and murder, who spent 22 years behind bars, is now being freed, and will be paid a heap of money as compensation, for the simple reason we now know he was innocent.

The number of people wrongly convicted is unknown. I have seen estimates that range from 1% to 25% of those convicted. The USA has a very thorough system of checks and balances for those sentenced to death, and despite that, there are still innocent people executed for crimes they did not commit.

[pErvinalia]

Retarded thread. The list of recent commenters is appropriate.

[Brian Peacock]

[devilsadvocate]

Our society is fragile. It needs nurturing and protecting from those who would undermine our great project. A project that, if successful, will ensure the future security and and well-being of everybody. Will you help in that noble work comrade?

[/devilsadvocate]

Would it be evil if you picked up a shovel and helped dig the hole?

[Hermit]

[devilsadvocate]

Our society is fragile. It needs nurturing and protecting from those who would undermine our great project. A project that, if successful, will ensure the future security and and well-being of everybody. Will you help in that noble work comrade?

[/devilsadvocate]

Would it be evil if you picked up a shovel and helped dig the hole?

I addressed that here, and Rum said, unless I am misinterpreting his post, more succinctly there.

Don't you read what others have to say unless their posts are a direct reply to yours?

[piscator]

Brian

I suggested a definition of evil a long time back, saying it was the kind of behaviour that resulted in doing terrible harm to people.

While this definition is necessarily loose, and there will be exceptions, it does help to avoid parochial justifications.

For example, it makes clear that Seth's suggestion of throwing terrorists out of a plane with no parachute is an evil suggestion. It makes clear that the death penalty is evil. Ditto torture, slavery, mutilation and so on.

What do you think happens when an infantryman calls in an air strike on a house with 20 enemy in it?

[MrJonno]

Evil = anti-social behaviour, ie any action that the social consensus considers to be damaging to that society.

At the moment most people think beheading heretics/aid workers/people of the wrong religion does not lead to a successful society so its evil , but if society suddenly decides it does result in a better society (which it did in the past ) then that suddenly becomes a very good thing

An extremely dangerous position to take, which almost gives me some sympathy for Seth's anti-state rants.

This way leads to the passive acceptance of the gas ovens in the camp next door...

Dangerous or not the reality is no one really considers themselves to be evil outside a few Hollywood type serial killers. If no one thinks they are evil them logically there is no absolute evil. The SS concentration guards thought they were doing good the Allies didn't hence we define hence the social consensus was against them. If the Nazi's had won WW2 we would be celebrating genetic purity day.

Seth is into absolute natural rights and wrongs, I'm certainly not quite the opposite.

If you do want some sort of absolute right and wrong you do need a holy book but none of the ones currently published as they spent most their time contradicting each other.

I'm quite happy with the idea of what makes a functioning society work (ie 'good') as an evolving concept in fact the concept of absolute morality terrifies me as who defines it

[JimC]

Sorry, Jonno, but gas ovens in concentration camps are not some relativistic moral conundrum, they are simply fucking atrocious, and if you want to be a sheep that accepts that they are OK if the State thinks they are OK then you are an absolute arsehole...