58 replies to this topic

[DJS]

Elrond

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

I had a feeling you would say that. [wis]

How quickly we forget, huh? Governor Ryan Commutes All Death Sentences

There ARE innocent people being sentenced to death and you want to speed up the process to have them killed? All to save a buck? I'm sure you would be singing a different tune if you were right now waiting on death row to be executed and were actually innocent of the crime!

Just one wrong conviction should be enough to convince a reasonable person that capital punishment is too final and *absolute* of a decision for society to make.

[eternaltraveler]

As I said early on in this discussion I would only be in favor of the death penalty if you are damn sure they commited the crime. That is not the situation in Illinois, their system sucks. The governor made the right decision there.

[Infernity]

"NOTHING is for sure, and EVERYTHING is possible" - - Infernity

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

[DJS]

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.

Pinker goes a long way towards showing that violence, which is a predominately male activity, is largely the product of gains made in procreative fitness by males who engage in risky, but profitable violent enterprises (tribal raids, etc). I completely agree that violence and aggression are deeply embedded in the male evolutionary psychology.

However, there is also a counterforce present in modern societies that has the effect of *civilizing* the individual. Think of this modernization of human behavior and social norms to be a memetic override of sorts.

More importantly, what I am contending is that you are confusing the concept of murder which by its very nature is a volitional act, with aggressive behavorial characteristics that are entrenched in the human psyche. One concept is connected with personality, the other is an individual choice tied to moral reasoning.

Saying that humans have a disposition toward violent behavior (*universally*) says nothing about the likelihood of them committing a murder. An analogy which comes to mind would be that of pit bulls and their up bringing. Pit bulls that are raised to be fight dogs are vicious killers. Other pitbulls that are raised in a loving home are big babies who wouldn't harm a fly.

Heredity provides an organism with certain unique "potentials". Environment is often the determiner of whether a given "potential" is expressed or not.

Remember how Dawkins concludes The Selfish Gene? Only we have the power to revolt against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.

-------------------------------

All of this is irrelevant to the issue at hand here in this thread however. That an individual may have a genetic or environmental disposition towards violent behavior (or whether s/he has free will) doesn't make any difference when assessing culpability. All that matters is what is in the ultimate best interests of society (based on a cost/benefit analysis of course). If you can't tell Elrond, I have no use for Aristotle and his soft and fluffy deontological ethic. [sfty]

[Richard Leis]

It may not be entirely true that criminals are responsible for their actions in the first place. For example, there is an emerging theory that implicates viral infections, perhaps in the womb, as a direct or indirect precursor to later mental illness. Mental illness itself has often been implicated as a primary cause of certain violent crimes. What if it turns out that serial killers, for example, are simply victims of a horrifying brain disorder, the direct or indirect result of a viral infection? How can we hold them responsible for their actions? Pathogens, genetics, chemistry imbalances, flawed social constructs, etc. may all be major contributors to crime and may in fact negate any personal responsiblity at all.

We immediately pass judgment on people and their actions. Depressed individuals should snap out of their funk. Serial killers must be evil monsters. Drug addicts require deterrents like prison and fines. Careful scientific analysis of these people, however, indicates that there is something more going on than a spiritual tug-of-war between good and evil. At the very least these people are completely responsible but could still benefit from medical breakthroughs. At the very worst, we have been creating monsters out of people who were in serious need of medical attention.

I suggest we get rid of the death penalty altogether and focus our energy and capital on better understanding mental illness, crime, the effects of social contructs on the human animal, etc. Eventually, depending on what we discover, it may be possible to come up with cures, treatments, early detection, and interventions (along with new paradigms in keeping innocents safe).

Dear Oblivion, wasn't the Pope just warning his flock about people like me with thoughts like these!?

[Lazarus Long]

Adi this from a guy named Prometheus?

(Prometheus)

(Infernity)

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

That's a tad extreme - in jail forever and tortured?

I would take his word for it if I were you.

[Richard Leis]

When I read the most heated entries in this forum I fear more than anything that some transhumanists, technology progressives, and physical immortalists will feel justified in limiting technological advances to those who believe in their technoprogressive philosophies. When and if people like George W. Bush, Leon Kass, the Pope, and other conservatives, religious extremists, and bioLuddites come around, these technology progressives, as punishment, will try to deny them the future.

I do not at all agree with his conclusions, but I think Francis Fukuyama, in his Foreign Policy article "Transhumanism", was right to ask "if we start transforming ourselves into something superior, what rights will these enhanced creatures claim, and what rights will they possess when compared to those left behind?" Those of us pursuing physical immortality and technological transcendence should always ask ourselves such questions.

Finally, to sum up my thoughts on the death sentence:

Those who believe in Oblivion should not make the mistake of believing they have the right to dole out Oblivion on their whim.

[Lazarus Long]

Are we talking about Mordecai Vanunu Adi?

You should look a little closer at his history because he was kidnapped out of another country, his case was not about selling secrets, simply giving them away as a matter of his conscience. If his punishment is to be so bad for simply deciding to promote peace by laying the cards on the table for what was being done in secret then what should my country do with all the Israeli spies we keep catching lately that seem to be compromising our State secrets?

Is it always OK for our guys and never acceptable for those guys?

BTW you do all know he has been rearrested .

[Lazarus Long]

(enoosphere)
When I read the most heated entries in this forum I fear more than anything that some transhumanists, technology progressives, and physical immortalists will feel justified in limiting technological advances to those who believe in their technoprogressive philosophies.

Exactly why separatism is an unacceptable alternative for Transhumanists it will only compound matters. I think James Hughes is correct that the process needs to be democratized and the sooner the better IMHO. Though the likelihood of a period of frontier like *equalization* by self empowerment is also a probability as power tends to distribute.

I am concerned as well but it is like riding the tiger once you start you can't stop.

I fully agree though that it is going to require some better attempts at rational reconciliation and protections for general rights at this rate. The problem is figuring out who wears the white hats and who is dressed like Darth Vader.

[Lazarus Long]

(Cosmos)

(enoosphere)
Finally, to sum up my thoughts on the death sentence:

Those who believe in Oblivion should not make the mistake of believing they have the right to dole out Oblivion on their whim.

I question the utility of capital punishment.

These are my sentiments but i will add it reminds me greatly of the arguments over torture. It is impossible to rely on information derived from this method. The same can be said of justice from capital punishment.

Aside from the ethical issues I think it is bad policy to say we want some people to live and others to die. If we can achieve our goals I am even unsure it should be withheld from anyone. But capital criminals would be one group I would consider denial of this benefit reaching.

However I would not accept one country denying another regardless of political differences. It would be tantamount to denying a medical advance and corrupt extortion on its face. I would hold though that some form of reconciliatory commitment be entered into prior to widespread dissemination of longevity tech.

I think if people had more to live for killing would be less a reason for anyone.

I am military trained to kill, Swiftly and efficiently. I am very proud to say I have never had to put those skills to use. I would very much rather be a healer.

However I reserve the *right* to kill in defense. A right I think any country as well as its citizens has. A right that I felt my nation violated when it moved to a posture of preemptive war. But we are dealing with two distinctly different questions but they derive from the same basis I suspect.

Capital punishment when not about revenge and redress of grievance is really about preserving public security and considered rational only as an act of defense of the common good. Why should a person that has proven themselves a threat to society be allowed to return to it?

The problem is the reasons and the facts don't jive.

The use of capital punishment has almost universally been applied in a discriminatory manner with respect to class, ethic background, religious conviction, race, gender, and so on. So long as justice is not evenly meted out a system cannot claim the right to be able apply this extreme penalty IMHO.

Better we do without it and seek any number of alternatives. Do you think Io would make a good Botany Bay colony?

[Richard Leis]

Cosmos:

What of those who don't want to limit themselves because others may not choose to follow? There are poor individuals in all countries, should we strip excess wealth from those who've earned it so others won't be left behind?

I agree that limits should not necessarily be forced on others. However, there will be consequences for individuals in transformation and those who are not. It cannot be otherwise. Will posthumans fight for resources? They have the advantage. I think technology creates a "vanishing" civilization so this may not be a problem for those left behind. Yet there are still consequences...a smaller population of modern humans, loved ones who are now alien, etc.

As "good" transhumans and posthumans (hell, even as "good" physical immortalists) we should at least remain aware of what our personal changes are doing to the world and people around us, whether we do anything about it or not. It is this self reflection that could mean the difference between moving on, or eating everything and everyone in our path. Regardless of how small modern humans might seem at the time, we should question whether or not posthumans have any responsibilities toward the beings left behind.

Left behind sounds so religious. I don't mean it in that way at all. I mean it in the sense of a child leaving home or friends growing apart.

[Richard Leis]

Lazarus Long:

Do you think Io would make a good Botany Bay colony?

I wonder if our very ideas about crime, capital crimes, punishment, personal responsibility, will undergo as rapid a change as everything else. Imagine a future where nanotechnology can bring anyone "back from the dead". Is murder still a crime? If it makes someone happy, if there are no long term consequences, if the victim consents, why not allow it? How then do we judge such activity? Does murder become a fetish, a past time, a game?

I'm not saying that this is absolutely possible, but I am suggesting that many of the activities we call crimes today could be viewed differently under different circumstances, the very circumstances that rapidly progressing technology seems to be creating.

In response, perhaps we should now segregate dangerous people from others until technology reaches the point that they are no longer considered dangerous. Then the question becomes, what do we consider dangerous now? How do we tell? Isn't violence necessarily unpredictable?

Another option is to continue putting people to death. If you happen to not get caught until after technology advances enough, then great. Cover your tracks better. The murderer's Singularity.

Self defense often comes up as a justifiable reason to kill someone. Shouldn't transhumanists and posthumans create and embrace technologies that allow the potential victim to survive will protecting the victimizer as well? When does that change from being impossible to naive to possible to a fun sport for all involved?

[eternaltraveler]

I question the utility of capital punishment.

As the systems of states I am aware of is set up I am inclined to agree with you. Death sentences end up being life sentences anyway, and they cost more (the guy who was recently executed in new england had to fight for his own execution!). Not to mention the chances of executing an innocent individual is higher than it should be.

[jaydfox]

Self defense often comes up as a justifiable reason to kill someone.  Shouldn't transhumanists and posthumans create and embrace technologies that allow the potential victim to survive will protecting the victimizer as well?  When does that change from being impossible to naive to possible to a fun sport for all involved?

The problem, however, is that if we develop the technology to allow people to, say, survive a gunshot to the chest, 99% of the time, then people who are murdering to end someone's existence (in the case of certain types of revenge) as opposed merely to decommission someone (turf wars, depression/temporary "insanity"), will not settle for something that is survivable. They'll opt for the hollow-point to the head, trying to blow the brain to pieces. Should we develop the technology to make this survivable (short of switching to a different susbtrate, this seems unlikely, but hypothetically speaking), then someone would just use a bigger gun, or explosive or fire if need be. Whatever it takes. So long as a "final" death is possible, people will try to do it.

If we someone stored "backups", the murderer would just go for the backups as well. This will make murder harder, but not impossible. The only way to make murder impossible is to become truly immortal (sor t of like in the omnipotent sense of the word, but not necessarily with the other benefits that omnipotence entails...), or to not have people want to murder you (which may include becoming a hermit, or destroying all of civilization, or)...

[Infernity]

Prometheus,

That's a tad extreme - in jail forever and tortured?

Oh well, then just not ever let him out, unless we program him.

Laz,

I would take his word for it if I were you.

What do you mean?

Cosmos,

Clearly there is some underlying political tension here. Are we talking about Mordechai Vanunu?

For those of you who don't know, he made the world aware of Israel's nuclear capability in 1986. Israel has never officially admitted it's status as a nuclear power, but there's little question in most people's minds that Israel holds a nuclear arsenal.

Admittedly, I don't know all the details of the case.

Yes.

enoosphere,

Finally, to sum up my thoughts on the death sentence:

Those who believe in Oblivion should not make the mistake of believing they have the right to dole out Oblivion on their whim.

Yeah, if I got you correctly- I agree.
But heh, people might use "after-life" as an excuse, or perhaps not, since they don't want him to be free.
Hence- death sentence is bad, end of story .

Laz

Are we talking about Mordecai Vanunu Adi?

You should look a little closer at his history because he was kidnapped out of another country, his case was not about selling secrets, simply giving them away as a matter of his conscience. If his punishment is to be so bad for simply deciding to promote peace by laying the cards on the table for what was being done in secret then what should my country do with all the Israeli spies we keep catching lately that seem to be compromising our State secrets?

Yeah I did mean him, err, well I am not too familiar with the case, but I know enough he should be behind bars till the Third World will have such abilities so what he knows shall apply nothing at all.

Is it always OK for our guys and never acceptable for those guys?

Um can you rephrase?

BTW you do all know he has been rearrested .

Yeah this creep, won't take too long till he's out again, I"m telling you. Unless if the policy of Israel shall change.

Another story among the dozens per day- one sick oversexed 40 guy was few days ago released from 1-2 years in jail for attacking females for sexual needs, and only 2 damn days after he got out- he raped another girl!

Conclusion- this guy should get 50 years in jail, and doubtably he shall live when he gets out- and if he will- LOL, this guy won't be able to even satisfied himself...

Aside from the ethical issues I think it is bad policy to say we want some people to live and others to die. If we can achieve our goals I am even unsure it should be withheld from anyone. But capital criminals would be one group I would consider denial of this benefit reaching.

I agree. Everyone should choose for themselves if they want to die or not. Although I think we should not let people under 21 choose. It's like alcohol and drugs, etcetera- I think only when you're old enough and independent, you can decide that for the reason you can't realize what death means as a teen or a kid.
More- most grown up are also having problems understanding that, but that's already their problem, all I can do is beg them to change aspect and give them reasons to live, and perhaps- reasons to not die.

However I reserve the *right* to kill in defense. A right I think any country as well as its citizens has. A right that I felt my nation violated when it moved to a posture of preemptive war. But we are dealing with two distinctly different questions but they derive from the same basis I suspect.

Ah, more information about you, hmm, interesting *analysing*.

enoosphere,
All questions in the last post, are they rhetoric?

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

[Infernity]

Elrond,

As the systems of states I am aware of is set up I am inclined to agree with you. Death sentences end up being life sentences anyway, and they cost more (the guy who was recently executed in new england had to fight for his own execution!). Not to mention the chances of executing an innocent individual is higher than it should be.

I agree with Don who's got a point, that matters of life and death should not be considered as a matter of money...

Jay,

The only way to make murder impossible is to become truly immortal

Hehe like a developed highlender. [tung]
Well, weired to think of that, the Highlander does get hurt by a shot, and so all pains, but only when his head is being felled he shall die. I wonder why when they are being in explosion- they are never being effected, as they are when the get shot- but simply as they should have as it was an explosion.

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

[Richard Leis]

infernity:

All questions in the last post, are they rhetoric?

No, I'm interested in possible answers. I personally think protecting the victimizer is something to strive for, but if I need to defend myself prior to such technology being invented, I will. I can imagine caring the guilt for sending someone to oblivion for the rest of my existence, however, no matter how monstrous they are.

[eternaltraveler]

I have not killed anyone, but I have hurt someone very badly out of self defense (like when a couple people tried to mug me at knife point in Moscow). What I did to both of them could have potentially proven fatal (a blow to the trachea to one and to the temple to the other). That is the consequence of holding a deadly weapon against my stomach.

I do not feel bad about it. Actions have consequences.

The best form of defense is not to engage in battle

But once battle begins you must take the shortest path to victory.

[DJS]

40 guy was few days ago released from 1-2 years in jail for attacking females for sexual needs, and only 2 damn days after he got out- he raped another girl!

To be a bit controversial I will state that I am in favor of castration for repeat sexual offenders (particularly pedophiles). The statistics show that these types of offenders can not be rehabilitated, at least not with our current level of technology. I believe that castration reduced the severity of sexual urges and therefore may be a legitimate option in some cases. I am also in favor of the bill put forward by Jeb Bush in Florida that would require pedofiles to wear GPS tags (trackers) at all times.

[Lazarus Long]

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

Prometheus,
That's a tad extreme - in jail forever and tortured?

Infernity,
Oh well, then just not ever let him out, unless we program him.

Laz,
Adi this from a guy named Prometheus?
I would take his word for it if I were you.

Infernity,
What do you mean?

Adi how much ancient Greek mythology do you know?

Ever hear of the Titans and the story of Prometheus?

[Lazarus Long]

Here is an interesting page of homicide statistics for the US by the US DoJ.

Homicide trends in the United States

[Infernity]

Um Laz, I know that Prometheus was a Titan who stole fire from heaven for the benefit of mankind and was punished for this by the gods...

Never hears the whole story, but I just LOVE all beliefs were there are several gods, such as ancient Greek gods, ancient Egypt gods, the Indians' gods, etcetera, fascinating!

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

[liorrh]

All those who oppose the death sentence, what is your alternative punishment? I agree with Jay that no technique can protect the victim.
what punishment is svere enough to deter
and should physical punishments be used to deter, or is there a better way. let

Castration?
Chopping his arms off?

[Infernity]

All those who oppose the death sentence, what is your alternative punishment? I agree with Jay that no technique can protect the victim.
what punishment is svere enough to deter
and should physical punishments be used to deter, or is there a better way. let

Castration?
Chopping his arms off?

Haha, indeed. For as long as they are aware... yes.

-Infernity

[tous]

Simply put. I think if they regret doing what they did(I mean regret the action - not the consequence). Don't kill them. Problem wherein is truly detirmining whos really regrets it.

[Infernity]

tous, but think about it, I can the same extent want so badly to kill someone or so and I know I would never regret the action, but I wouldn't do it only because it's illegal and I don't want to be punished. Now, the killers, might regret it because of the consequence and not because of the action, but honestly realizing they did a mistake, as much as I for the example would do without the killing.

So it's not fair your suggestion.

-Infernity