Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    Someone brought this up a while ago. Thought it was interesting. Could the following idea technically work?

    -Capital punishment is brought in
    -Used for extreme cases such as multiple murders, murder of children
    -The amount of appeals and bureaucracy within the court process are reduced
    -The huge amount of money saved is given to charities specialising in e.g. medicine, sanitation, food/water in 3rd world countries
    -1 evil (probably) white guy dies, 10,000 African kids don't die

    I was always against capital-punishment, but tend to take a utilitarian approach to life. I've racked my brains, and I've asked many people, but nobody has ever been able to tell me why the above idea would not work. Some have simply said "it would work, but it wouldn't happen!" which as anyone with a shred of intelligence could tell you, isn't a reason against it. Thus, I converted to a pro-capital punishment stance, given the above situation is true.

    To clarify, if you want to debate the morals of capital punishment, go away, there are a billion threads on the subject. I'm hoping to keep this thread strictly about the above scenario and if it would or not work.
    Firstly, I'd just like to ask how you can possibly be an anarchist and believe in Islam. Anarchism is completely apposed to organised religion due its hierarchal nature.

    In answer to your question: the fact is you're restricting the options. If every person in the UK and US donated 10% of their income to Africa and if the aid was distributed evenly there would be no world poverty. Killing people for money isn’t justified because of the possible gains in utility, since there are many other means of redistributing wealth.

    Furthermore, I would dispute the idea that capital punishment reduced costs. For the system to be fair people would have to have appeals, these appeals can last for years and can cost (in some cases) more than keeping someone in prison for a life sentence.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Excellent article on this from Mises' org:

    The Libertarian Position on Capital Punishment
    Mises Daily: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 by Murray N. Rothbard


    "The liberal thesis that capital punishment is brutal because it condones murder is fallacious because it takes the isolated act of killing the murderer out of context."[Libertarian Review, June 1978]

    There are few issues that have gripped the general public more compellingly in recent years than the death penalty. Throughout the country, and especially in urban areas, a rising tide of violent crime, mugging, and murder has led to an outpouring of public sentiment for revival of the death penalty for homicide. If for no other reason than this one, the libertarian movement — especially the Libertarian Party — must address itself directly to the capital-punishment question, for only by addressing squarely the important political issues of the day can we make libertarianism relevant to the public. There is no doubt that the overwhelming majority of the public, regardless of creed or occupation, vehemently supports the return of the death penalty, ending the abolition that had been put over by liberal intellectuals and their judicial sympathizers. In New York, liberal Governor Hugh Carey has risked his political neck by vetoing a bill restoring the death penalty; in California, former Los Angeles Police Chief Ed Davis has taken a leading role in the Republican race for governor by championing the return of the death penalty for murder.

    Even the august Supreme Court of the United States has kept its eye on the election returns. In 1972, it banned any capital punishment on the curious new constitutional doctrine that it violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment." In 1976 and 1977, however, it retreated to the point of allowing the death penalty for murder alone (and not for rape or kidnapping), but only where its imposition had not been mandated by the legislature. Thirty-three states now have death penalty statutes, which continue to be tested in the courts.

    The Libertarian Party, including myself on the platform committee, has tended to shy away from the capital punishment question until a broad consensus on punishment theory is attained within the libertarian movement. Opinion within the movement ranges far and wide, from the ultrapacifist view that all punishment must be abandoned, to the "hanging judge" position that any infraction of someone's private property, however minor, shows that the criminal has no respect for property rights and therefore that this minor aggressor deserves to be executed. But we can afford to wait no longer to come to grips with the capital-punishment question. This has become a pressing question in political life, more than just a fascinating problem in high libertarian theory. We must resolve the issue within our ranks and then advance our views in the public debate.

    In my view, it is not an accident that there is very little support among the public for the death penalty except for the crime of murder — even though in 18th-century England, for example, the death penalty was employed in cheerful abandon for numerous crimes. I believe that the instincts of the public are correct on this issue: namely, that the punishment should fit the crime; i.e., that punishment should be proportional to the crime involved. The theoretical justification for this is that an aggressor loses his rights to the extent that he has violated the rights of another human being. If A steals $10,000 from B, he should be forced, not only to return the $10,000 (the "restitutionist" position, with which most libertarians would agree), but he also loses his rights to his own $10,000; that is, he should be forced to pay the victim $10,000 for his aggression.

    But if A loses his right to $10,000, should B, the victim, also have the right to have A executed for his crime? Surely not, for then the punishment would be grossly disproportionate. The criminal would then lose an important part of his own rights, and B — the previous victim — and his accomplices, would now be committing their own act of aggression upon A.

    It is relatively easy to allot monetary penalties in the case of theft. But what about such a crime as murder? Here, in my view, the murderer loses precisely the right of which he has deprived another human being: the right to have one's life preserved from the violence of another person. The murderer therefore deserves to be killed in return. Or, to put it more precisely, the victim — in this case his surrogate, in the form of his heir or the executor of his estate should have the right to kill the murderer in return. Libertarians can no longer afford to wait to come to grips with capital punishment. It has become too pressing a problem.

    "In all cases, it should be the victim — not 'society' or 'its' district attorney — who should bring charges and decide on whether or not to exact punishment."The liberal thesis that capital punishment is brutal because it condones murder is fallacious because it takes the isolated act of killing the murderer out of context: the context of the previous murder that the aggressor had committed. We are familiar with the common charge that liberals, in weeping over the murderer, willfully ignore the far more tragic violence that he committed on his victim; and this charge is surely correct.

    Another common liberal complaint is that the death penalty does not deter murder from being committed. All sorts of statistics are slung back and forth trying to "prove" or disprove this claim. While it is impossible to prove the degree of deterrence, it seems indisputable that some murders would be deterred by the death penalty. Sometimes the liberal argument comes perilously close to maintaining that no punishment deters any crime — a manifestly absurd view that could easily be tested by removing all legal penalties for nonpayment of income tax and seeing if there is any reduction in the taxes paid. (Wanna bet?) Furthermore, the murderer himself is certainly "deterred" from any repetition of his crime — and quite permanently.

    But in any case, note that I did not couch my argument in utilitarian terms of deterrence of future crime; my argument was based on basic rights and the requirements of justice. The libertarian takes his stand for individual rights not merely on the basis of social consequences, but more emphatically on the justice that is due to every individual. Some states provide for the death penalty only for murderers of policemen or prison guards, and not for any other cases of homicide. The libertarian can only regard such statutes as an obscenity. To levy capital punishment solely for killers of government officials, but not for murderers of private citizens, can only be considered a grotesque travesty of justice. Does this mean that the government proposes to protect fully only the rights of its own members, and not of anyone else?

    So far we have gone all the way with the proponents of the death penalty, ranging ourselves with the instincts of the general public and against the sophistries of the liberal intellectual elite. But there is an important difference. For I have been stressing throughout the right of the victim, not that of "society" or the state. In all cases, it should be the victim — not "society" or "its" district attorney — who should bring charges and decide on whether or not to exact punishment. "Society" has no right and therefore no say in the matter. The state now monopolizes the provision of defense, judicial, and punishment service. So long as it continues to do so, it should act as nothing more and nothing less than an agent for guarding and enforcing the rights of each person — in this case, of the victim.

    If, then, a crime is committed, it should be up to the victim to press charges or to decide whether the restitution or punishment due him should be exacted by the state. The victim should be able to order the state not to press charges or not to punish the victim to the full extent that he has the right to do so. Thus, suppose that A aggresses against B; but B is a pacifist or doesn't believe in punishment for whatever reason; the State should not be able, as it is now, to continue to prosecute A in the name of "society" even though the victim may be urging otherwise. Or, similarly, the criminal should be able to go to the victim and buy his way out of his prosecution or punishment; for in that case, the victim has agreed voluntarily to allow the criminal to pay him monetary restitution in lieu of other sanctions against him.

    In short, within the limits of his proportional right of punishment, the victim should have the sole decision how much, if at all, to exercise that right. But, it has been pointed out, how can we leave the decision up to the victim in the case of murder, precisely the one crime which removes the victim totally from the scene? Can we really trust his heir or executor to pursue the victim's interests fully and wholeheartedly, especially if we allow the criminal to buy his way out of punishment, in dealing directly with the heir? This, however, is not an insuperable problem. The answer is to deal with the problem in the same way as any wishes of a deceased person are obeyed: in his will. The deceased can instruct heirs, courts, and any other interested parties on how he would wish a murderer of his to be treated. In that case, pacifists, liberal intellectuals, et al. can leave clauses in their wills instructing law enforcement authorities not to kill, or even not to press charges against a criminal in the event of their murder; and the authorities would be required to obey.

    As a practical matter, in the here and now, and until such wills become a matter of common practice, libertarians can enter the political arena with the following clear-cut position, a position that not only endorses the fervent instincts of the general public, but will also instruct them still further on libertarian principles, namely, that we advocate capital punishment for all cases of murder, except in those cases where the victim has left a will instructing his heirs and assigns not to levy the death penalty on any possible murder. In that way, the possessors of a liberal or pacifist conscience can go about their business assured that they could never be a party to capital punishment; while the rest of us can have the capital punishment we would like to have, free from the interference of liberal busybodies.
    To this:

    (Original post by IFondledAGibbon)
    Firstly, I'd just like to ask how you can possibly be an anarchist and believe in Islam. Anarchism is completely apposed to organised religion due its hierarchal nature.
    Organised religion is when the church (or, in the case of Islam, the mosque) specifically wields authority other people. Its perfectly legitimate to be an anarchist and believe in a religion.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why oh Why do people not support Capital Punishment.

    With new DNA etc we will not make mistakes so that argument is out of the window.

    Heres a thougt for those do-gooders - With the money we save by hanging someone as opposed to life in prison it would pay for more than 3 teachers salaries - argue against that.

    If a guilty plea and 100% gulty - what on earth is wrong with it!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I can never understan how people can try and justify Capital Punishment.

    "Why must those who've killed, be killed, to be shown killings wrong?"

    An 'eye for an eye makes the world blind' and all that.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sswf224)
    Why oh Why do people not support Capital Punishment.

    With new DNA etc we will not make mistakes so that argument is out of the window.

    Heres a thougt for those do-gooders - With the money we save by hanging someone as opposed to life in prison it would pay for more than 3 teachers salaries - argue against that.

    If a guilty plea and 100% gulty - what on earth is wrong with it!
    Those against capital punishment would rather lock someone away in prison for the rest of their lives, than destroy them cheaply and spend the money on teachers/nurses/saving hundreds of lives in Africa. Sick ****s.

    Of course, we don't live in a true democracy and the government doesn't care about the views of the people, which is why we need a violent pseudo-anarchist revolution.

    Either that or we get an Islamic revolution and Shariah law is implemented (at the current birth rates, won't be too long). Shariah law actually promotes justice as opposed to the tortuous revenge of simply locking someone away for life.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I can't see any reason why it couldn't work that way. Keeping a prisoner alive for a lifetime costs more than kiling them so these savings could be used the way you have perscribed.

    However, I feel obliged to add a discalimer that I am in NO way supportive of capital punishment even in the formentioned case.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Here's a thing about Capital Punishment.

    The Moors Murderers missed CP by a few months only - so they have spent the last 40 years or so in prison at between 40 - 45k a year - work that out.

    With Brady been on hunger strike fo rthe last few years - it is considerably more.

    Justift that please all you do-gooders
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Organised religion is when the church (or, in the case of Islam, the mosque) specifically wields authority other people. Its perfectly legitimate to be an anarchist and believe in a religion.
    Seems like a complete contradiction in terms to me. If, as an anarchist, you reject all illegitimate authority, then it follows that you must reject the ultimate authority I.E. God.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IFondledAGibbon)
    Seems like a complete contradiction in terms to me. If, as an anarchist, you reject all illegitimate authority, then it follows that you must reject the ultimate authority I.E. God.
    I was just pointing out that Islam doesn't have to be organised religion. Also, even communist anarchism isn't opposed to authority per se but irrational (hierarchical) authority. As an individualist anarchist my problem is not with hierarchy or acceptance of a hierarchical authority such as one's own God, legal guardian or employer but coercion of others to live by the norm. Plenty of anarchists were religious and I respect their beliefs though I personally am an agnostic atheist; I do not believe one can know anything for granted.

    On the topic of capital punishment I hold that the victim is entitled to retribution.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    I was just pointing out that Islam doesn't have to be organised religion. Also, even communist anarchism isn't opposed to authority per se but irrational (hierarchical) authority. As an individualist anarchist my problem is not with hierarchy or acceptance of a hierarchical authority such as one's own God, legal guardian or employer but coercion of others to live by the norm. Plenty of anarchists were religious and I respect their beliefs though I personally am an agnostic atheist; I do not believe one can know anything for granted.

    On the topic of capital punishment I hold that the victim is entitled to retribution.
    I understand your point and I concede that belief in a personal God doesn't conflict with anarchism. Although, I would argue that by definition, Islam is an organised religion and that a religious God is never a legitimate authority. I also think we're pretty much arguing over semantics and whether or not Islam has to be hierarchal isn't really relevant. So I'll just be on my way.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IFondledAGibbon)
    I understand your point and I concede that belief in a personal God doesn't conflict with anarchism. Although, I would argue that by definition, Islam is an organised religion and that a religious God is never a legitimate authority. I also think we're pretty much arguing over semantics and whether or not Islam has to be hierarchal isn't really relevant. So I'll just be on my way.
    Organised religion is a way of forcing others to conform to your beliefs. The church to begin with was the state and everybody had to be a christian. An anarchist should necessarily be against organised religion but not necessarily religion in and of itself. I'd be against it if the state were to mandate tommorow that everybody had to go to church, for instance or that it was illegal for the media to report an atheist (or for that matter, a theist - aggressive secularism is just as bad) point of view.

    Some who practice Islam engage in organised religion but others, most in fact, do not do so; it is important not to generalise here.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IFondledAGibbon)
    Seems like a complete contradiction in terms to me. If, as an anarchist, you reject all illegitimate authority, then it follows that you must reject the ultimate authority I.E. God.
    Wrong, because God is a legitimate authority, if you believe it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sswf224)
    Here's a thing about Capital Punishment.

    The Moors Murderers missed CP by a few months only - so they have spent the last 40 years or so in prison at between 40 - 45k a year - work that out.

    With Brady been on hunger strike fo rthe last few years - it is considerably more.

    Justift that please all you do-gooders
    Hm, around £1.8 million by my calculations. Probably enough to save around 10,000 lives in poverty stricken areas of Africa. But no, we simply have to lock a few people away instead of just destroying them. Sickos..
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    This is the problem with utilitarianism. It completely disregards the individual and his/her rights. I think that capital punishment is fundamentally wrong, and even if thousands of people could be saved from implementing it, it would still be wrong.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The main problem I have with this discussion is not whether capital punishment is wrong or right but this attitude that capital punishment is the cheaper option and therefore the better option.

    Do you all realise the repercussions of this train of thought? Think about what would happen if all our decisions were made solely by monetary factors.

    It would be cheaper to cut thieves hands off than send them to jail, so why don't we do that. If someone says something that is discriminatory or libelous, lets not waste money on costly court proceedings, obviously we should just cut out their tongues.

    Think of all the "good" we can do with these noble savings we have made.

    Idiots.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    Those against capital punishment would rather lock someone away in prison for the rest of their lives, than destroy them cheaply and spend the money on teachers/nurses/saving hundreds of lives in Africa. Sick ****s.
    For me, that's a utilitarian argument about the 'broader effect on society'. For me, all that is important is moral consistency and ensuring the victim receives their just retribution. Could I suggest you read the article I posted on page 2 about crime and individualism?

    Of course, we don't live in a true democracy
    Thank goodness; I don't want to have to conform to the beliefs of the majority.

    and the government doesn't care about the views of the people, which is why we need a violent pseudo-anarchist revolution.
    Who is 'we' and why do 'we' need a violent revolution. Also, why do you believe that a society born out of violence will be anarchistic or free?

    Either that or we get an Islamic revolution and Shariah law is implemented (at the current birth rates, won't be too long).
    I think that the belief Shariah law will be implemented is a myth. In any case it is democracy that allows for this sort of thing to happen and its democracy that causes people to be frightened of open borders; they are afraid (and in some ways, justifiably so) that these immigrants will become a majority wielding power in the democracy and have a significant effect over their lives. This is why I prefer individualist customs and property rights over democracy since democracy plays groups (including ethnic groups) in society against each other.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    If, then, a crime is committed, it should be up to the victim to press charges or to decide whether the restitution or punishment due him should be exacted by the state. The victim should be able to order the state not to press charges or not to punish the victim to the full extent that he has the right to do so. Thus, suppose that A aggresses against B; but B is a pacifist or doesn't believe in punishment for whatever reason; the State should not be able, as it is now, to continue to prosecute A in the name of "society" even though the victim may be urging otherwise. Or, similarly, the criminal should be able to go to the victim and buy his way out of his prosecution or punishment; for in that case, the victim has agreed voluntarily to allow the criminal to pay him monetary restitution in lieu of other sanctions against him.
    Basically, allowing mafia's and the rich to get away scot free. Just 'cause the victim allowed her abuser to get away scot free doesn't mean she did it voluntarily. If mafia's can get away with crime now after threatening the victim, whatcha think will happen in such a society like this? I can get a victim. Force her to write she doesn't believe in capital punishment or punishment at all in her will and kill her and I won't be executed/punished?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
    Basically, allowing mafia's and the rich to get away scot free. Just 'cause the victim allowed her abuser to get away scot free doesn't mean she did it voluntarily. If mafia's can get away with crime now after threatening the victim, whatcha think will happen in such a society like this? I can get a victim. Force her to write she doesn't believe in capital punishment or punishment at all in her will and kill her and I won't be executed/punished?
    First, I'd like to point out that I don't agree with every single little thing Rothbard points out in that article, like I don't agree that it follows that Bob steals £10,000 from Jack and thereby Jack is allowed to take back £20,000 from Bob in reparations.

    In regards to wills, anyone who writes a will must go through a very specific legal process with lawyers and so forth for their will to be recognised. If someone is a pacifist they can write a will that specifically states they are a pacifist and believe capital punishment is wrong. Also if a gangster beats me into write a will saying they are innocent, with forensic evidence, it is possible to look at the way at the will is written (or rather scrawled if I am being forced to write it) to determine whether the subject would have wrote the will or not. Also, it might look a bit suspicious if the will was dated back to the very night right before my body was found.

    Finally I don't like using the words capital punishment, or law courts and so forth. I believe in retribution and outlawry for violent offences (such as rape and murder). The idea of courts and prisons and judges are all highly statist mentalities. I actually came to this conclusion after debating this fairly extensively with someone who read van Notten's book on Somali Xeer. If you do a simple search of Somali Xeer on wikipedia you will see that the idea behind free market justice is to go through arbiters and seek reparations for minor offences and retribution for violent offences. Its quite simple, if I were to murder your father, its the case that when you seek a legal case against me, you want to kill me by first removing insurance schemes that protect me (effectively making me an outlaw) and I want to defend myself (by proving my innocence). If your father is a pacifist, only his rights should be respected, though you may be able to seek reparations (again depending on his will).

    It doesn't matter if you can't afford to pay the arbiter since if you have a legitimate claim on the assets of a rich man for example, you have plenty of money to pay for good representation (unlike under the statist legal system where you get shoddy representation from a public lawyer if you have no money and you can either like it or lump it).

    These systems of stateless justice were used long before the state evolved; violent offences like rape and murder were the exception, not the norm. The statist court system was highly influenced by religion (as was the state itself); the theme of justice before God's eyes and 'righting' 'wrongs'.


    (Original post by arabcnesbit)
    It would be cheaper to cut thieves hands off than send them to jail, so why don't we do that.
    Nope, its cheaper for the person who was stolen from to seek reparations from the thief that can be shared with their representatives and the objective arbiter who has been agreed by both parties to oversee their dispute.

    If someone says something that is discriminatory or libelous, lets not waste money on costly court proceedings, obviously we should just cut out their tongues.
    Nope, again court proceedings (though I don't believe in 'courts' again) can be funded by the reparations sought from the person who has offended someone by defacing their character in public.

    (Original post by Selkarn)
    Hm, around £1.8 million by my calculations. Probably enough to save around 10,000 lives in poverty stricken areas of Africa. But no, we simply have to lock a few people away instead of just destroying them. Sickos..
    Or alternatively £1.8 million could go back into the pockets of the tax payers for them to spend on whatever they like.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Do you believe in libertarian free will?

    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    In regards to wills, anyone who writes a will must go through a very specific legal process with lawyers and so forth for their will to be recognised. If someone is a pacifist they can write a will that specifically states they are a pacifist and believe capital punishment is wrong. Also if a gangster beats me into write a will saying they are innocent, with forensic evidence, it is possible to look at the way at the will is written (or rather scrawled if I am being forced to write it) to determine whether the subject would have wrote the will or not. Also, it might look a bit suspicious if the will was dated back to the very night right before my body was found.
    Ah, but organised criminals are exactly that. Organised hence they're likely to have corrupt lawyers who'll help them, heck they may even have a graphologist to make sure it gives out the illusion of a voluntary arrangement. And, the article you posted stated that a person may wish to free his aggressor, I'm assuming guilt or innocence isn't a factor and I can wish for my aggressor to be free even though I acknowledge his guilt? And there's the whole Stockholm syndrome. Which is retively common in child abuse cases and domestic violence.

    I actually came to this conclusion after debating this fairly extensively with someone who read van Notten's book on Somali Xeer.
    Interesting. I just read about it briefly in wikipedia and it seems like a okay/good system. I've been thinking lately about defining the law in terms of property rights and this is what the system seems to be doing. Have you read his book? And would you recommend?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What government on earth would donate the money saved to aid africa? It would go on the same things that all public money gets wasted on.

    People who try to justify capital punishment make me sad
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

3,351

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.