In Favor of the Death Penalty

[Tim Brownson]

I posted something today to see what kind of response I'd get from my readers. Muted would be the fairest description. I suspect some people never even got to the end of the post such was their disgust in what I had to say.

Wondering what you think.

[Angela]

Ahem. You NEVER mess around with anyone's values? Hello, there was that ONE time......

(successfully, as it happened )

[Tim Brownson]

Originally Posted by Angela

Ahem. You NEVER mess around with anyone's values? Hello, there was that ONE time......

(successfully, as it happened )

No there wasn't!

What I mean is I never try and change them. I may help a client try and SEE them, but that's not the same thing at all ;-)

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Tim Brownson

No there wasn't!

What I mean is I never try and change them. I may help a client try and SEE them, but that's not the same thing at all ;-)

I see. It worked really well for me.

[Brutha]

From a debating standpoint you didn't make a good case for the death penalty.
The debate about the death penalty is a debate about values and you didn't defended those values of the people who favor the death penalty.

You don't win principle debates by appealing to money but by appealing to principles.

When you want to understand other people you shouldn't use money as the first explanation.
"Those people who favor the death penality aren't willing to pay the money to protect my sacrosanct values" isn't a position that helps you with understanding other people.
It's better to understand the values that the other person holds sacrosanct.

An interesting paper about sacred values: http://journal.sjdm.org/91203/jdm91203.pdf

[Vibration]

Originally Posted by Tim Brownson

I posted something today to see what kind of response I'd get from my readers. Muted would be the fairest description. I suspect some people never even got to the end of the post such was their disgust in what I had to say.

Wondering what you think.

Informative and thought provoking.

I don't think I stand on either the black or white side of this (for or against), but suspect a better answer is yet to come.

Maybe genetic reengineering of the criminal mind? I don't know.

[Annemieke]

Originally Posted by Brutha

It's better to understand the values that the other person holds sacrosanct.

I think what you say here is very interesting. And actually I think it is not possible.

Because (at least how I see) values are a combination of personal belief and emotional investment. And that is why it can never be absolutely understood by someone else, let alone defended by someone else.

The closest someone can get to it (again as I see it) is by researching it with an open mind and this time recognise everything from the opposite side, like Tim did here.

But that way you are always from the outside looking in so to speak. And never get to the unique personal feelings about that belief.

[Andrew Brunelle]

I enjoyed your post. My opinion on the death penalty is that it is stupid. But you made some good points even though you are truly against it. Death is a bit too final for me. It doesn't solve the problem. It just kills it. But people know that the death penalty exists in some states, so they shouldn't be out killing people and not expect to be killed back. But either way, it will still exist at least for some time.

[Brutha]

Because (at least how I see) values are a combination of personal belief and emotional investment. And that is why it can never be absolutely understood by someone else, let alone defended by someone else.

You doesn't need absolute understanding to understand the debate about the death penalty.
Nobody who favors the death penalty actually defends it on those grounds that Tim argued.

It like saying that those people who are against the Afghanistan war only care about the size of the military budget and ignore the moral arguments for peace.
Your average opponent of the Afghanistan war would certainly prefer when the money would be spent on health care.
For those who oppose war however the argument that war kills a lot of innocent people is however much more compelling than the monetary argument.

Saying "Those who are against the Afghanistan war just aren't willing to pay the money to do the morally right thing" is just as mistaken as saying "Those who are for the death penalty just aren't willing to pay the money to do the morally right thing".
Neither helps you with understanding other people, for most people money is no sacred value and those few people are against public spending on principle and wouldn't want a reallocating on that money to another cause but lower taxation.

[Razly]

Criminals will think twice about committing their crimes if it means their life is on the line. Criminals are at a very selfish level of conciousness, and hence they'd fear nothing greater than losing that self.

[Annemieke]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Nobody who favors the death penalty actually defends it on those grounds that Tim argued.

That was more or less my point (getting a bit complicated to explain what I mean) but I think it are not those grounds because it are not his own values.

His feelings still say no. But his mind, that makes him say yes, is counting facts that he is learning along his search. (Not that I want to fill in what exactly Tim meant, but more or less trying to make it a bit abstract to make my point.)

So what I meant to say is that he can not understand the values of the other person (that was what I reacted on in my previous post) but he can learn facts. But those facts are not the same as the values of the other person.

[Brutha]

So what I meant to say is that he can not understand the values of the other person (that was what I reacted on in my previous post) but he can learn facts. But those facts are not the same as the values of the other person.

That basically the I'm stupid and nobody can help me to become any smarter argument.
In this case that's not true. Tim isn't too stupid to understand the argument that criminals are deterred when they fear that they will lose their life and the argument why people who kill have no right to stay alive.

He's rather a victim of a bias that he isn't conscious of. He uses money as an explanation for the views of those people who disagree with him.
It's very popular to think that the people who don't agree with don't care about values but only care about money. It's possible to be aware of the bias and learn to recognize it when you become a victim of it.

[Annemieke]

Originally Posted by Brutha

He uses money as an explanation for the views of those people who disagree with him.

I don’t think he uses money as an explanation for those views. He uses money as facts he found. And then said that people that already are in favor of the death penalty will probably say that it all makes perfect sense.

I really think the difference is essential. And that is how I read the post.

But maybe it was just what I read in it.

[Brutha]

He uses money as facts he found.

It's pretty easy to find the money argument when you are searching for facts of why people support a position that you are disagreeing with.
Understanding or finding more principled arguments is more difficult when you don't agree with those arguments.

[Annemieke]

Originally Posted by Brutha

It's pretty easy to find the money argument when you are searching for facts of why people support a position that you are disagreeing with.
Understanding or finding more principled arguments is more difficult when you don't agree with those arguments.

Well, that was actually my whole point. That it is not possible to fully understand those arguments, if they are based upon deep values from someone else. He can search for them, but even if he read them he would not fully understand them. They might even sound irrelevant to him, because his feeling is not in on that.

It is possible that you have a diffent understanding of values then me. But as I understand them, it does not have so much to do with logical arguments. Although it might be very logical to those who have those arguments.

My understanding is that values are a combination of cultural background, together with personal experiences. And those two together might give certain values. Most are more or less the same as all others that grow up in that culture. But personal experiences can make some very different ones.

Maybe an example makes more clear what I mean to say. Lets say there are two men. One man who had a father that was killed by a serial killer. And another man who had a father that was brought to death because they thought he was a serial killer.

Within the same culture the first man was brought up with the feeling that serial killers should have the death penalty because what they do is horrible. And the second man was brought up with the feeling that giving someone the death penalty is horrible.

Maybe it is an extreme example, but what I mean to say is that the feeling is the same here (they both lost a loved one that is killed) but with opposite (maybe not yet deep seated) values.

But as they grow up they both will see arguments that are in favor of their own values as valid, while anything that opposes them, is either not recognised or just put aside as irrelevant.

This is a process that slowly grows and at a certain moment it is such a deep seated value, that it is almost impossible to recognise.

[ThoughtAddict]

Originally Posted by Tim Brownson

I posted something today to see what kind of response I'd get from my readers. Muted would be the fairest description. I suspect some people never even got to the end of the post such was their disgust in what I had to say.

Wondering what you think.

The 6 month idea is interesting, but likely impossible if we're going to preserve convicts' rights to due process of law. Not to mention, it would be pretty rough considering the error rate of capital crime convictions. I believe the Innocence Project has over 250 post-conviction death row exonerations, with 1000+ combined years of incarceration. That's at least 250 innocent folks who would've been killed...

[Mikahcho]

Although I would be interested in seeing some stricter rules placed, here in the UK, especially against younger offenders (we have alot of young thugs down here), I'm against the death penalty, although it does seem as though it'd take down murder, rape, etc, rates significantly.

I think if you can discipline individuals at a younger age, it will stay with them- so I've been thinking about how different life would be if the cane was still around... maybe we don't need something so painful, but you know what I mean

It was a god post, made for an interesting read, thanks

[Brutha]

Well, that was actually my whole point. That it is not possible to fully understand those arguments, if they are based upon deep values from someone else. He can search for them, but even if he read them he would not fully understand them. They might even sound irrelevant to him, because his feeling is not in on that.

Just because it's impossible to be perfect doesn't mean that it's a bad idea to learn to improve your reasoning process to make better understand the positions that other people hold.

[Tim Brownson]

Brutha, I think you may well have hit the nail on the head with my defense.

I abhor the death penalty and was struggling to defend it. Therefore, maybe unconsciously I couldn't countenance a moral argument and defaulted to a financial one, that I agree, is absurd.

As I said, the post was really about values and I used the death penalty as something that has a tendency to polarize people.

So maybe I failed in my attempt to deliver a coherent argument? Or maybe it just depends on the person reading it.

[ThoughtAddict]

Originally Posted by Tim Brownson

So maybe I failed in my attempt to deliver a coherent argument? Or maybe it just depends on the person reading it.

Hey, you're in good company. Aristotle seems to have done the same thing with slavery several thousand years ago.

[Brutha]

As I said, the post was really about values and I used the death penalty as something that has a tendency to polarize people.

I don't really think that there are much people for whom the death penalty is a primary value.

So maybe I failed in my attempt to deliver a coherent argument?

What's your goal? Is it an end in itself to deliver a coherent argument?

You write The purpose of incarceration isn’t to exact revenge, or least no Government would ever admit as such. The purpose is to reform or ‘correct’ people..
If that's the purpose of incarnation than the death penalty doesn't really do a good job either.
Obviously incarnation isn't only about reforming people.
There four reasons for punishment:
1.1) Deterrence.
1.2) Removal of the ability to commit further crimes
1.3) Reforming people.
1.4) Revenge

Then society has to pay a certain price for the punishment :
2.1) The monetary price
2.2) Suffering of people who are guilty of a crime
2.3) Suffering of people that are wrongly convicted
2.4) Public perception of fairness

People who favor the death penalty think that it would increase the deterrence effect (1.1) and you would have fewer crimes and think that the state should do everything in it's power to lower the crime rate.
Even when that's true people who are against the death penalty usually care a lot about 2.2 and 2.3.
You can ask on what basis we should care about whether a rapists suffers when he's convicted and someone who favors the death penalty might say that the fate of the rapist is irrelevant because he say given lost his right by committing the act.
There you have the question whether there's an unalienable right that a criminal can't lose.
Lastly you have question like whether the trade off of having two fewer cases of murder because you have more deterrence might counteract the poor fate of one person who loses his life because he's wrongfully sentenced with the death penalty.
Is it moral to kill one person to safe two?

That happen to be the big moral question where someone who favor the death penalty differs.
Then there the technical question of how big the deterrence effect happens to be.

Other issues that are interesting:
A society where the the punishments are too cruel might (2.4) have the problem that citizens don't support police investigations.
In a society where punishments are too small people might engage in revenge (1.4) themselves and don't respect the monopole of violence of the state.

If you break a debate down like that it's easier to understand that other people might have different priorities when it comes to their values.

Thinking that the other party is simply motivated by money or by power is unfortunately one of the main ways that the public debate gets poisoned and therefore I think it's important to be aware when one makes that kind of argument.
They are too easy.

[Tim Brownson]

I think we're having two completely different conversations here.

The post was nothing to do with the death penalty and my defense was half-hearted. I'm not sure why you are arguing against something that I've already said was a crock and I don't even believe in myself?

Feel free to carry on though

[Brutha]

The post was nothing to do with the death penalty and my defense was half-hearted. I'm not sure why you are arguing against something that I've already said was a crock and I don't even believe in myself?

I don't care here about the death penalty itself either but I care about the general debate.
I care about trying to understand the position of other people and using a mental framework that's likely to help to understand the values of other people.

[Tim Brownson]

Originally Posted by Brutha

I don't care here about the death penalty itself either but I care about the general debate.
I care about trying to understand the position of other people and using a mental framework that's likely to help to understand the values of other people.

Brutha, I care deeply about other peoples values and work with them on a daily basis. It's at the core of what I do as a coach, but I do it at an individual level. I think we're generalizing here and that's pretty much impossible to do with values in my experience.

[Tim Brownson]

Originally Posted by Annemieke

I think what you say here is very interesting. And actually I think it is not possible.

Because (at least how I see) values are a combination of personal belief and emotional investment. And that is why it can never be absolutely understood by someone else, let alone defended by someone else.

The closest someone can get to it (again as I see it) is by researching it with an open mind and this time recognise everything from the opposite side, like Tim did here.

But that way you are always from the outside looking in so to speak. And never get to the unique personal feelings about that belief.

And btw, that's a great point. Whenever we are looking at somebody elses values we are always viewing them through the filter of our own and we can never get that 'clean' view.

[Brutha]

Brutha, I care deeply about other peoples values and work with them on a daily basis.

I didn't suggest that you didn't care.
You actually said that you "attempted to deliver a coherent argument".
Making up a coherent argument for proposal A and finding the arguments that people who feel strongly about proposal A make are two different goals.

[Izak]

I agree with death penalty sentence, but only in crimes of sexual abuse, homicide and pedophile. These people dont deserve a second change, the victims wont get a second chance in life, there will be a really horrible scar that wont leave for the rest of his\her life. Since they violated the human rights of the victim, they lose theire rights, and since they dont contribute to society no more, and just waste resources, death penalty.

[Tim Brownson]

Originally Posted by Brutha

I didn't suggest that you didn't care.
You actually said that you "attempted to deliver a coherent argument".
Making up a coherent argument for proposal A and finding the arguments that people who feel strongly about proposal A make are two different goals.

That's presuming all people think the same and they don't. One person in the comments said it made them think, and another did here. If it is a coherent argument to them, then it is a coherent argument period

See also what Izak said. "since they dont contribute to society no more, and just waste resources, death penalty"

That too intimates money is a consideration.

[bluedragon]

I think the single most important issue with death penalty is that there is the possibility of innocent people being wrongfully convicted.

[Brutha]

That too intimates money is a consideration.

For money to be the consideration money would have to be valued differently between people who oppose the death penalty and people who don't.
That however not the disagreement.
If that would be the core disagreement than it wouldn't be a polarizing issue.

Sure, I oppose it when the government spend 100 million$ on a bridge to nowhere. That's however no issue that touches my values.
There actually deep values involved in the death penalty debate.