4 ms·

Don't be pedantic, you know I meant "escape the death penalty". Are you arguing for n=infinity?

by ikeboy 10y ago

jacquesm 10y ago
Well, it all depends on how many people you intend to kill, it's all about the ratio npeopleinnocent/npeopleguilty after all. The problem is that no matter how small the ratio gets in absolute terms there is only the possibility of killing an innocent person or not killing an innocent person. Even if you assume that everybody is guilty I'd still make the argument that people can genuinely change and that no matter what you do you will not be bringing anybody back that's already dead. Think of still having the death penalty as a black mark on a civilization. As a nice example have a look at the Philippines and try to work out for yourself if you feel that even if society will be better afterwards it is worth it to kill this many people, many of them in serious trouble already. The extreme example of that is a society that simply kills everybody that is convicted of a crime, after all, why not, it makes society better, right? Or does it?
- ikeboy 10y ago
  >Even if you assume that everybody is guilty I'd still make the argument that people can genuinely change and that no matter what you do you will not be bringing anybody back that's already dead. That may be (and I agree with it), but I'm critiquing PG's argument (in particular his assertion that it's obvious), not his conclusion. >The extreme example of that is a society that simply kills everybody that is convicted of a crime, after all, why not, it makes society better, right? Or does it? You need different punishments for different crimes, or someone who commits a small crime has no more deterrence against big crimes. I'm not sure what point you're making with this.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    The justice system is - in principle - not about revenge but about balance, a balance between running a safe society and one where people that misbehave are placed in a spot where they can be re-habilitated and then can re-enter society. That path is closed in an extreme way by killing someone, there is no rehabilitation from that no matter what. Deterrence and punishment have very little to do with each other (but deterrence and the chance of being caught do have a lot to do with each other). So fundamentally the justice system is not about punishment at all, though from the victims perspective that might seem to be the case.

Don't be pedantic, you know I meant "escape the death penalty". Are you arguing for n=infinity?

by ikeboy 10y ago

Don't be pedantic, you know I meant "escape the death penalty". Are you arguing for n=infinity?

Well, it all depends on how many people you intend to kill, it's all about the ratio npeopleinnocent/npeopleguilty after all. The problem is that no matter how small the ratio gets in absolute terms there is only the possibility of killing an innocent person or not killing an innocent person. Even if you assume that everybody is guilty I'd still make the argument that people can genuinely change and that no matter what you do you will not be bringing anybody back that's already dead. Think of still having the death penalty as a black mark on a civilization. As a nice example have a look at the Philippines and try to work out for yourself if you feel that even if society will be better afterwards it is worth it to kill this many people, many of them in serious trouble already. The extreme example of that is a society that simply kills everybody that is convicted of a crime, after all, why not, it makes society better, right? Or does it?

ikeboy 10y ago
>Even if you assume that everybody is guilty I'd still make the argument that people can genuinely change and that no matter what you do you will not be bringing anybody back that's already dead. That may be (and I agree with it), but I'm critiquing PG's argument (in particular his assertion that it's obvious), not his conclusion. >The extreme example of that is a society that simply kills everybody that is convicted of a crime, after all, why not, it makes society better, right? Or does it? You need different punishments for different crimes, or someone who commits a small crime has no more deterrence against big crimes. I'm not sure what point you're making with this.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  The justice system is - in principle - not about revenge but about balance, a balance between running a safe society and one where people that misbehave are placed in a spot where they can be re-habilitated and then can re-enter society. That path is closed in an extreme way by killing someone, there is no rehabilitation from that no matter what. Deterrence and punishment have very little to do with each other (but deterrence and the chance of being caught do have a lot to do with each other). So fundamentally the justice system is not about punishment at all, though from the victims perspective that might seem to be the case.