58 replies to this topic

[Infernity]

Open poll: What do you think of execution / death sentence?

Never? Often? Circumstances...


~Infernity

[jaydfox]

Wow, tough one. I've always been in favor of the death penalty, yet I see that it stands somewhat in contradiction with the immortalist's philosophy. I say somewhat because it is not diametrically opposed. I won't say never, but I won't say often.

I guess first we need to make a distinction. In the U.S.A., something like one third of all death sentences are handed out to innocent people, supposedly. For some reason, the percentage of convicts sentenced to death that are innocent is higher than the percentage that are sentenced to life without parole.

So, given such a system, I'd say scrap the death penalty in the U.S.A. That ratio is just abominable.

However, in theory, assuming that we could actually convict and sentence people without error, I'd say that the death penalty has its place. But that depends on how we treat the next question.

Would you favor reprogramming someone's very essence? I'm not just talking about putting ex-rapists and ex-murderers on drugs that control their desires and emotional complexes. I'm talking about going in and rewiring their neurons, erasing the "habits" and "reflexes" of thought, emotion, and action that allowed them to commit the crime in the first place, and which would make it easy to commit again. And of course, genetically reprograming them if necessary (to correct chemical imbalances, etc.). Not to mention erasing the memories, if they might serve as templates for similar future acts. Essentially, I'm talking about turning them into a different person. Isn't that the same as killing them, in some ways?

Of course, we could always leave that choice up to the convict. "Choose: death, or complete neurological reprogramming".

On the one hand, there's a visceral response to want to "punish" someone for the evil acts. On the other hand, the deed is done, and consigning someone to oblivion after the fact seems wrong. If reprogramming a person changes their personality to the core, but preserves that part of them which experiences the world, then perhaps it is not equivalent to death, because it is not equivalent to oblivion. We all change throughout our lives. For them, we've just sped up the process, effecting decades of change in hours or days.

[Mark Hamalainen]

Strange coincidence, I was just reading this... http://www.reason.co.../rb060105.shtml

[Infernity]

Thanks for the deepen reply Jay.

Well you got a point there, especially in the last paragraph, but I think our opinions are crossing way before.

I do not think that death should be a punishment at all, but a way to erase information that meant to be destroyed.

I do not think there is any crime that deserves oblivion, and changing your essence totally is pretty much the same thing. If what you said in the last paragraph will apply, then well, that's a terrific idea.

However, I believe that no one deserve to die unless he has some information that cannot be erased by technology, and will be very harmful it won't be destroyed (I am not talking only about information as information, but as any *thing* that this person comprise.

I don't believe any case like that has happened, and I doubt it will happen more than rare several times.

No one deserve to die, no one should die.

Some meant to be happy, and some don't.


Osiris, aye strange [sweat]

~~~

This question has been asked in a forum in Israel, I have joined lately. If there is any Israel who wants to read the mostly thoughtless replies: http://www.rasmi.co....?showtopic=4641


Yours truthfully
~Infernity

[jaydfox]

Osiris, thanks for the link, it does directly link to some of my concerns. I for one would be against forcing someone to undergo reprogramming, since that puts us in the position of moral authority, and for us, even as a society, to force morals into someone's very mind, would be wrong. However, that's not to stop us from giving the person limited options. Since I think suicide should be legal, I suppose we wouldn't directly have to word it as a choice of death or reprogramming. But if the choices are death, reprogramming, or life without parole, and assuming that withholding life extension technology is tantamount to execution, where would that leave us? How long would we let someone rot in jail?

Which brings us to the typical sci-fi scenario of penal colonies, where people are left with primitive technology, no prison guards, and fend for themselves. I don't know, the whole situation, as far as the choices available to society, is less than desireable, but then again, it was choices on the criminal's part that put us in this tough position.

Tough questions, with tough answers. But luckily, we have several decades to ponder this before it's even a remotely realistic question ("perfect" prosecution and sentencing, capability to reprogram, and ubiquitous availability of life extension technology).

[eternaltraveler]

If someone robs someone else of their potentially infinite lifespan (murder) they should not be able to keep their own potentially infinite lifespan.

However I would agree that it has to be proven pretty darn well that they actually did the murdering.

[caliban]

My respect infernity for raising that question. It has been lounging on the tip of my tongue for almost two years now.

Here is why:

The mission of the Immortality Institute is to conquer the blight of involuntary death.

Edited by caliban, 01 June 2005 - 11:05 PM.

[mike]

I am completely against the death penalty under any circumstances, for serveral reasons, including some articulated in posts above.


Here is a question: In what sense is the death penalty a "punishment?"

If oblivion follows death, then after the death penalty is carried out, the individual will no longer exist. How can the non-existent experience punishment?

If one is inclined to believe that some aspect of a person somehow survives death, then one could offer several different speculations. What if all murderers are forgiven and wecomed into a blissful eternity in the Light? In that case, the death penalty would seem to me to be just the opposite of a punishment. What if all murderers are consigned to a Hell of eternal suffering? The death penalty would definitely be a means of increasing punishment. As it would be even if punishment after death for a murderer comes to an end at some point.

Going back to the assumption that oblivion follows death, then the only punishment I can see connected with the death penalty is whatever fear and mental anguish the murderer might experience as he or she awaits execution. In that case, keeping the murderer alive for a significant period of time before execution would be much more of a punishment than would be immediate execution.

I think the death penalty eithers puts an end to any chance for punishment of a murderer (oblivion), or, for those who feel there may be an afterlife, it thrusts the murderer into a realm in which whatever happens to that murderer is beyond our control or knowledge.

By the time some people are exectued, they sometimes have evolved into individuals who would be essentially incapable of committing a murder. Does anyone here believe that each individual has a "soul" that is morally responsible for all past actions, even though the individual has shed the traits that led to the original crime? I'm not inclined to think that way myself.

[kraemahz]

You know, I asked this same question maybe two months ago and I got two replies. [huh]

I personally favor the destruction of that certain personal freedom (mental reprogramming) for violent acts that (unfortunately) could not be stopped ahead of time. Look at it this way: human knowledge and ability are valuble assets, destroying even one is heinous, but to have that destruction come at the loss of another is irresponsible. We can't go killing our immortals off because they're biologically malfunctioning. Don't destroy the irreplaceable, fix it. This then falls under risk assessment: how do we stop it from happening to begin with? What are the measures that need to be taken to nip murderous/violent acts in the bud so that both are spared?

[John Schloendorn]

I wouldn't kill anyone as long as I can easily afford to lock them away or in any other way make sure they don't do it again. But I don't claim the right to make this a rule for others. I would encourage others to handle this in their own ways.

As above, I support intervention in others' way of handling capital punishment only when their proof criteria are sloppy or they punish other crimes than murder by death.

[Infernity]

Jay,
May I ask, under what crime you'd give only these options of punishment? how critical must the crime be to be judged so?

Elrond,

If someone robs someone else of their potentially infinite lifespan (murder) they should not be able to keep their own potentially infinite lifespan.

Na, what came out of this? nothing...

However I would agree that it has to be proven pretty darn well that they actually did the murdering.

Will it could be possible to get inside his brain and confirm only by seeing his mind, then I think it would be even better to see the motivations, I am pretty sure we'll see that everyones acts is pretty reasonable and fits their logic. I think fixing their ramified part of the brain and making them realize so what are the throwing away is the best.
They'll have to live with a huge pain of rue forever.

My respect infernity for raising that question. It has been lounging on the tip of my tongue for almost two years now.

Here is why:

The mission of the Immortality Institute is to conquer the blight of involuntary death.

Thanks Caliban,
Well, is there any other crime you'd kill for 'punish', or just because you think it would be the best...?
Or is it also no, because of contradiction?
Will you never break the principles?

Mike, I agree with you here.

You know, I asked this same question maybe two months ago and I got two replies. [huh]

:\ err, you just gave Justin B. another argument...
I don't know, mental reprogramming is like killing them. If I had the option to choose between the three of Jay's (death, reprogramming, or life imprisonment), I think I'd go for life imprisonment.



You guys took it for so obvious that this punishment us being discussed only for murders, but I am asking you, those who are in favor of it- do you think there are another crimes that cost such lost?

I wouldn't kill anyone as long as I can easily afford to lock them away or in any other way make sure they don't do it again. But I don't claim the right to make this a rule for others. I would encourage others to handle this in their own ways.

As above, I support intervention in others' way of handling capital punishment only when their proof criteria are sloppy or they punish other crimes than murder by death.

Aye.


Well do you guys know that here in Israel, death sentence is given only for genocide!! ? No death punishments but for that!


I think that people who does crimes have their own logic and reasons to do so, and we should change the wrong pieces. How do we know what's right and what's wrong? we'll never do, but we can decide that everything that is harmful to other should be take down.

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

[armrha]

Never. If someone commits an act of violence or whatever, they just have a problem with their brain. They're a broken machine. Technology doesn't exist to fix them now, so the best (or at least most humane) solution would be to freeze them. It would be a shame that economics would require us to destroy broken humans rather than fix them later, after all the inherent value in people and all. All a criminal is is a person that is too broken to realize they should go to get help before they do the things their broken brain wants them to do. Eventually we'll be able to fix that right up, and they'd certainly be better people because of it.

[DJS]

I agree with Armrha.

Also:

Here is a question: In what sense is the death penalty a "punishment?"

Should it be the objective of society to punish, or to rehabilitate? What is the ultimate objective of a penal system? Should we, as a society, be seeking vengence or a utilitarian approach that produces the most mutual benefit?

hehe, I almost forgot that we (here in the US) live in a society permeated by a Judeo-Christian ethic. [sfty]

[John Schloendorn]

What is the ultimate objective of a penal system?

For me it is only self-defense, made more efficient by an alliance with suitably-minded others.

[lightowl]

I think the death penalty is just a way to bring closure for the victims. How sweet is the feeling of revenge in seeing the genesis of ones sorrows crushed by the power of ones community? The justification that it is too expensive or impossible to rehabilitate the person is in my opinion just a cover-up. I think "life in prison" is just a total capitulation of our justice systems. We can program the human mind today. Its called psychotherapy. But its much more fun to just terminate people.

If I was a criminal, by the norms of our society, I would much prefer banishment. Perhaps there is a community out there that would value what ever "deficiencies" I possessed. But we don't have that choice today. When we are born we are owned by our community. We are at the mercy of unequal peers. Hopefully in the future of space expansion human diversity can truly blossom.

[Infernity]

I do also agree Armrha.

hehe, I almost forgot that we (here in the US) live in a society permeated by a Judeo-Christian ethic. [sfty]

Heh well Don, not all of us...

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

[eternaltraveler]

They're a broken machine.

We don't fix all broken machines. We throw them away. I sold a broken car for scrap metal the other day.

Furthermore, murder is not an aspect of a broken human. It is typical human behavior that anyone is capable of. It needs to be discouraged in the ultimate way. If it isn't, more murders will happen. The net result would be more human death. Without a system such as this in place victims would be more likely to take the law into their own hands.

Europe is not a valid comparision to america in this area. America is full of various ethnic and cultural backrounds who hate eachother, and many other cultures where the idea of vendetta is common within their culture. Europe is much more homogeneous. There is naturally going to be more tension here.

It costs more than I make in a year per year to keep a prisoner. Economics is a concern.

I'd be ok with the idea of freezing people for capital crimes (and only crimes they would otherwise get the death penalty for). It's fairly likely that is a dealth penalty anyway. My view on cryonics is that it is great idea because it offers the chance of revival. Rivival is not particularly likely (it is becoming more likely with more modern freezing techniques, but a great deal of damage is still done, even with the best vitrification avalaible). I hope to be signed up by fall. The cost of the life insurance is worth the chance of being revived.

Should it be the objective of society to punish, or to rehabilitate?

It should be the objective of society to rehabilitate for crimes other than murder.

The above is my opinion on the matter. It is formed out of my extreme value and respect of life.

[Infernity]

It costs more than I make in a year per year to keep a prisoner. Economics is a concern.

Good point Elrond :\ ...

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

[eternaltraveler]

(cosmos)

Neural reprogramming could be considered something close to the death penalty. In cases where an intentional pre-planned murder has been comitted, the state may pursue unfettered reprogramming that attempts to assure no re-offense at any cost, including the partial destruction of self and possible recomposition with non-native information.

This seems like an aweful waste of resources as it would be a death sentence away (for that person's ego). But if it becomes possible and it makes anti-death penalty people feel better I don't see a major problem with it.

Edit: rethinking I do see a problem with it. You are robbing this new person you create of their childhood, of their growth and development. If you're going to make a new person you might as well do it the old fashioned way.

Edited by elrond, 06 June 2005 - 08:50 PM.

[DJS]

It costs more than I make in a year per year to keep a prisoner. Economics is a concern.

Good point Elrond :\ ...

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

Wrong, not a good point. It is a well known fact that the appeals process in death penalty cases is exceedingly expensive and can last for years. The "economics" of capital punishment is by no means clear cut.

[Infernity]

But Don, once you kill someone you paid and that's it, and keeping someone for 80 years, means a yearly impost whom we pay for keeping them there alive...

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

Edited by infernity, 06 June 2005 - 08:13 PM.

[DJS]

How is it Elrond, that your opinion manages to get me so riled up that I must respond?? [lol]

Elrond

We don't fix all broken machines.  We throw them away.  I sold a broken car for scrap metal the other day.

Weak analogy fallacy.

Furthermore, murder is not an aspect of a broken human.  It is typical human behavior that anyone is capable of.

It most certainly is an act committed bya dysfunctional human. Just because a behavorial trait such as a violent disposition is somewhat prevalent does not make it anything less than pathological in terms of its innate psychology. I would not kill another individual except in the most extreme of circumstances (self defense or defense of my love ones). I consider this type of aversion towards extreme violence to be a nearly universal norm for *civilized* individuals. I do not agree with you that anyone is capable of the act of murder.

Further, there was maybe 12,000 murders in the United States last year (which has one of the highest homocide rates in the developed world) with a total population closing in on 300,000,000 people. Even if there were an additional 100,000 attempted homocides, the actual act of murder is still without question the exception rather than the norm.

It needs to be discouraged in the ultimate way.  If it isn't, more murders will happen.

This would be a good point, except that it has been proven time and time again that capital punishment in no way correlates with reductions in homocide rates.

Without a system such as this in place victims would be more likely to take the law into their own hands.

And than those victims are no longer victims, but perpetrators who should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Revenge should never be condoned by a society.

Europe is not a valid comparision to america in this area.  America is full of various ethnic and cultural backrounds who hate eachother, and many other cultures where the idea of vendetta is common within their culture.  Europe is much more homogeneous.  There is naturally going to be more tension here.

The overwhelming majority of violent crime in the United States is black on black and takes place in inner city. Ethnic and cultural background is therefore not the issue, socio-economics is. Compare the US' worst inner city ghettos to that of Europes, guess who wins? [wis] When it comes to urban war zones the US is the gold medal winner hands down.

[DJS]

Infernity

But Don, once you kill someone you paid and hat's it, and keeping someone for 80 years, means a yearly impost whom we pay for keeping them there alive...

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

80 years is obviously an exaggerated claim Infernity. My point is that death row prisoner still remain for many years on death row before they are finally executed. And, that during this time, they are legally entitled to engage in an appeals process which can far exceed the costs associated with *normal* life sentence incarcerations.

Second, even though I consider myself to be of a utilitarian persuasion, *economics* should definitely not be a deciding factor on issues concerning human life and death.

[caliban]

Did someone mention cryonics yet? [sfty]

--> http://indyweek.com/...0-25/ruley.html

[Infernity]

Yeah Don, I agree.

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

[eternaltraveler]

Good point Elrond :\ ...

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

Wrong, not a good point.  It is a well known fact that the appeals process in death penalty cases is exceedingly expensive and can last for years.  The "economics" of capital punishment is by no means clear cut.

the problem is therefore with the appeals process. It should be sped up greatly.

Edited by elrond, 06 June 2005 - 09:05 PM.

[eternaltraveler]

And than those victims are no longer victims, but perpetrators who should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Revenge should never be condoned by a society.

I might be able to agree with you here on the way society should function, however, that being said if I were on the jury for a man on trial for killing the man that raped and murdered his 7 year old daughter you can be sure I wouldn't find him guilty.

I do see a difference between an act of revenge, and one of justice, even in cases when they can be one and the same.

[eternaltraveler]

it most certainly is an act committed bya dysfunctional human. Just because a behavorial trait such as a violent disposition is somewhat prevalent does not make it anything less than pathological in terms of its innate psychology. I would not kill another individual except in the most extreme of circumstances (self defense or defense of my love ones). I consider this type of aversion towards extreme violence to be a nearly universal norm for *civilized* individuals. I do not agree with you that anyone is capable of the act of murder.

The overwhelming majority of violent crime in the United States is black on black and takes place in inner city. Ethnic and cultural background is therefore not the issue, socio-economics is. Compare the US' worst inner city ghettos to that of Europes, guess who wins?  When it comes to urban war zones the US is the gold medal winner hands down.

Correct me if I'm misinterpreting you here but you seem to contradict yourself. My contention is that murder is a natural human condition, and it is only through fighting human nature that it can be circumvented. You say this is not the case but is a result of broken humans. Why then is it when you put ordainary humans in a set of conditions (poverty) murder goes way up? It seems to be much more condition dependent than the result of inate problems in these individual humans.

Furthermore I did not say that cultural groups need to be against eachother. I would argue that the inner city culture naturally produces people that fight eachother. Cultures need not be ancient things, they can be relativly new constructs.

[Infernity]

I do not think death sentence is fair, as I also think the punishments in Israel are poor and not enough.

Life sentence here is only about 20 years ( [?] [!] )
Everyday there are kids the get murdered by stupid drunk teenagers, for no reason and all they get is like a year in jail...
It is always getting worse, really.

One person that worked in the atomic reactor started releasing information, selling it. He was caught and now he is free again... He kept selling the information from 18 years ago.
This creep.

He should be in jail forever, tortured, he is risking the country, bastard.

~Infernity