There was an excellent Horizon last night, with Michael Portillo on a
quest to see if he can find a "humane" form of execution.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/tx/executions/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7183957.stm

I have no doubt that the vast majority of Humanists oppose the Death
Penalty in principle. However, I would think that Humanists would like to
see countries that still implement the death penalty move to a proven
painless method. Or would they? It does occur to me that finding a
"humane" method of State killing could sanitise it and make it less likely
to be abolished. The cruelty of the electic chair is certanly a strong
message for Abolitionists in the US.

The method Portillo settles on is Nitrogen asphyxiation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_asphyxiation

I wasnt aware of this method, and was surprised at its simplicity and
apparent lack of suffering. Portilly himself undergoes hypoxia in a
decompression training chamber, and describes the feeling as "euphoric",
despite the fact that he was seconds away from unconsciousness at the end,
and utterly incapeable of putting his mask back on. He amusingly comes out
thinking he has beaten the test, despite announcing than eight minus three
is four!

Should Humanists be arguing for the death penalty to use this method, or
should we only ever be arguing for abolition? Is it right to leave
current death-row inmates to a painful death in the hope that it helps us
save the lives of death-row inmates in the future?

Mark

--

On Jan 16, 3:51 pm, Mark.Wri...@bristol.ac.uk wrote:
>
>
> I wasnt aware of this method, and was surprised at its simplicity and
> apparent lack of suffering. Portilly himself undergoes hypoxia in a
> decompression training chamber, and describes the feeling as "euphoric",
> despite the fact that he was seconds away from unconsciousness at the end,
> and utterly incapeable of putting his mask back on. He amusingly comes out
> thinking he has beaten the test, despite announcing than eight minus three
> is four!
>
This is the method recommended for euthanasia now - you can get the
nitrogen from canisters of artificial cream (apparently some people
eat this stuff too). I'd have thought it more pleasant to extract it
from cans of draught Guinness, drinking the byproduct, but that's just
me.

I agree, making it painless misses the point. Depriving somebody of
their life is wrong and removing the physical pain is a hypocritical
attempt to blur that -as is the practice these days of carrying out
the barbaric act in a pseudo-medical surrounding.

I think that doctors should refuse to have anything to do with it, and
refuse to sign the death certificates. That'd bugger the system up
nicely.

On 2008-01-16, Peter Brooks  wrote:
>
> I agree, making it painless misses the point. Depriving somebody of
> their life is wrong and removing the physical pain is a hypocritical
> attempt to blur that -as is the practice these days of carrying out
> the barbaric act in a pseudo-medical surrounding.
>
> I think that doctors should refuse to have anything to do with it, and
> refuse to sign the death certificates. That'd bugger the system up
> nicely.

It is only part of the problem, and there are a lot of emotions around
it. I was quite surprised by the people who believe it should be made as
painful as possible, which is very vengeful. There are those who promote
the death penalty who'd want to include torture in the process too.

 - Richard

-- 
   _/_/_/  _/_/_/  _/_/_/     Richard Corfield 
  _/  _/    _/    _/          
 _/_/      _/    _/                Time is a one way street,               
_/  _/  _/_/    _/_/_/                     except in the Twilight Zone

On Jan 16, 5:14 pm, Richard Corfield 
wrote:
> On 2008-01-16, Peter Brooks  wrote:
>
>
>
> > I agree, making it painless misses the point. Depriving somebody of
> > their life is wrong and removing the physical pain is a hypocritical
> > attempt to blur that -as is the practice these days of carrying out
> > the barbaric act in a pseudo-medical surrounding.
>
> > I think that doctors should refuse to have anything to do with it, and
> > refuse to sign the death certificates. That'd bugger the system up
> > nicely.
>
> It is only part of the problem, and there are a lot of emotions around
> it. I was quite surprised by the people who believe it should be made as
> painful as possible, which is very vengeful. There are those who promote
> the death penalty who'd want to include torture in the process too.
>
Hanging, drawing and quartering used to be popular. I think people who
like that sort of thing also like the humiliation and loss of dignity
involved, as well as enjoying the schadenfreude.

This all seems to me to be highly ignoble. You can understand an
individual doing it out of revenge, if pushed to emotional extremes,
but, as a cold, calculated, judicial process there is no place for it.
Certainly not in any civilised context.

wrote:

> There was an excellent Horizon last night, with Michael Portillo on a
> quest to see if he can find a "humane" form of execution.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/tx/executions/
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7183957.stm
>
I must see if I can watch it again.
 
> I have no doubt that the vast majority of Humanists oppose the Death
> Penalty in principle. However, I would think that Humanists would like to
> see countries that still implement the death penalty move to a proven
> painless method. Or would they? It does occur to me that finding a
> "humane" method of State killing could sanitise it and make it less likely
> to be abolished. The cruelty of the electic chair is certanly a strong
> message for Abolitionists in the US.
> 
> The method Portillo settles on is Nitrogen asphyxiation:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_asphyxiation
> 
> I wasnt aware of this method, and was surprised at its simplicity and
> apparent lack of suffering. Portilly himself undergoes hypoxia in a
> decompression training chamber, and describes the feeling as "euphoric",
> despite the fact that he was seconds away from unconsciousness at the end,
> and utterly incapeable of putting his mask back on. He amusingly comes out
> thinking he has beaten the test, despite announcing than eight minus three
> is four!
> 
A standard teaching lab in second year physiology in my degree, and I
later taught it too, is to subject the students to hypercapnia, asphyxia
and hypoxia using bell jar respirators with recording drums and a mass
spec to measure gas levels at the end.

The hypoxia bit is always run by a medically qualified member of staff,
the subject wears a pulse oximeter on their finger and is made to do
maths problems. The medic will turn them on to room air according to
their level of anoxia and/or the degradation of their maths skills. So
yes, it is painless. Though at the end of the process the subject will
undergo extreme gasping motions. Even though the subject will be deeply
unconscioius at this point observers would be disturbed by this.

You see this also when euthanasing rodents with CO2 and I always have to
remind myself as I watched the mice gasping their last that they are not
awake at that point, so are not suffering. I think that this would act
as a point of attack by death penalty opponents operating purely at an
emotional level.

I did this during my own asphyxia turn (you rebreathe a volume of room
air, removing O2 and boosting CO2). My partner turned me on to room air
because in his words I was 'making seal noises'. My CO2 level was higher
than I achieved on hypercapnia though fortunately for my neurons the O2
was not lower than on the hypoxia. Our system of ensuring the subject
was fine did not work... I do not remember it as being painful, however
I did not expect to die from it either.

> Should Humanists be arguing for the death penalty to use this method, or
> should we only ever be arguing for abolition? Is it right to leave
> current death-row inmates to a painful death in the hope that it helps us
> save the lives of death-row inmates in the future?
> 
The problem with this is that it ignores the fact that even if I know
that my death by hypoxia will be painless I will still dread it. It will
also not address the objectons that speak firstly to the problem of
never being absolutely sure in many cases and secondly that what does it
say about the society that kills people? especially about concepts like
the possibility of redemption and human change. We are basically saying
that these people are worthless, we are refusing to accept that we may
be able to 'cure' them at some time in the future or that even if they
are in prison to the end of their natural lives, maybe they can do some
good within that environment during the alloted span of their years. IOW
the death penalty shows a profound pessimism about the human condition
and I don't want to live in any society that thinks like that.

Peter


-- 
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country
www.the-brights.net

Peter Ashby wrote:
> IOW
> the death penalty shows a profound pessimism about the human condition
> and I don't want to live in any society that thinks like that.
> 
Yes, that's a good point too. It also shows complete contempt for the 
person - you don't get greater contempt - putting him at the level of 
vermin.

I think that that is how supporters of judicial murder manage to square 
their consciences (if they have them - I think psychopaths are perfectly 
content with the notion). They believe that people who end up being 
arrested on serious charges are ipso facto guilty and by virtue of thus 
being evident criminals, sub-human, vermin, in fact. They have no notion 
that they themselves might either commit a capital offence or be framed 
for one.

On 2008-01-16, Peter Brooks  wrote:
> Hanging, drawing and quartering used to be popular. I think people who
> like that sort of thing also like the humiliation and loss of dignity
> involved, as well as enjoying the schadenfreude.
>
> This all seems to me to be highly ignoble. You can understand an
> individual doing it out of revenge, if pushed to emotional extremes,
> but, as a cold, calculated, judicial process there is no place for it.
> Certainly not in any civilised context.

A Sikh temple I once visited has pictures all around the walls of its
communal eating room remembering the horrors that have been done to Sikhs
past, I think quite often by Muslims though there may have been other
types of perpetrator too. Some of the implements pictured were downright
nasty. Sikhs remember their past which struck me as odd initially as
I'd always seen them as a religion that promotes tolerance and all the
general loving of thy neighbour.

I find it hard to contemplate torture, even as punishment. Maybe, so
those in support say, if I were to meet the people who this would be
applied to and learn of their crimes, but still it does feel wrong for
various reasons.

 - Richard

-- 
   _/_/_/  _/_/_/  _/_/_/     Richard Corfield 
  _/  _/    _/    _/          
 _/_/      _/    _/                Time is a one way street,               
_/  _/  _/_/    _/_/_/                     except in the Twilight Zone

On 2008-01-16, Peter H.M.Brooks  wrote:
>
> I think that that is how supporters of judicial murder manage to square 
> their consciences (if they have them - I think psychopaths are perfectly 
> content with the notion). They believe that people who end up being 
> arrested on serious charges are ipso facto guilty and by virtue of thus 
> being evident criminals, sub-human, vermin, in fact. They have no notion 
> that they themselves might either commit a capital offence or be framed 
> for one.

A failure to realise that we all have complex motivations at any point
in time. An oversimplification of others.

 - Richard

-- 
   _/_/_/  _/_/_/  _/_/_/     Richard Corfield 
  _/  _/    _/    _/          
 _/_/      _/    _/                Time is a one way street,               
_/  _/  _/_/    _/_/_/                     except in the Twilight Zone

wrote

> There was an excellent Horizon last night, with Michael Portillo on a
> quest to see if he can find a "humane" form of execution.

> Should Humanists be arguing for the death penalty to use this method, or
> should we only ever be arguing for abolition? Is it right to leave
> current death-row inmates to a painful death in the hope that it helps us
> save the lives of death-row inmates in the future?

I used to be dead against execution but I don't see the point of keeping 
people in jail for the rest of their lives. It costs the state a lot of 
money and the point seems to be to punish the criminal which is  a rather 
Victorian, Christian concept, I think.
With the seemingly increasing level of hate-filled, murderous, 
fundamentalist religious fanatics and increasing paedophile rate it would 
seem like a good idea to get rid of the scum.

However, a large percentage of paedophiles do get rehabilitated. The myth is 
that they can't be changed but that is not the fact of the matter. People 
can be turned round.
I think people should be given the chance to change and that the purpose of 
imprisonment should be to rehabilitate and not to punish.

Perhaps, as a last resort, execution could return, but I don't see it as a 
solution to the overcrowded prisons, for example, only as a means to rid 
society of people unable to be allowed out in public safely. I don't think 
it is an issue to campaign on.

Steve M

On Jan 16, 3:46 pm, pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter Ashby) wrote:
>  wrote:
> > There was an excellent Horizon last night, with Michael Portillo on a
> > quest to see if he can find a "humane" form of execution.
>
> >http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/tx/execu...
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7183957.stm
>
> I must see if I can watch it again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/

Peter Ashby  wrote:
: You see this also when euthanasing rodents with CO2 and I always have to
: remind myself as I watched the mice gasping their last that they are not
: awake at that point, so are not suffering. I think that this would act
: as a point of attack by death penalty opponents operating purely at an
: emotional level.

: I did this during my own asphyxia turn (you rebreathe a volume of room
: air, removing O2 and boosting CO2). My partner turned me on to room air
: because in his words I was 'making seal noises'. My CO2 level was higher
: than I achieved on hypercapnia though fortunately for my neurons the O2
: was not lower than on the hypoxia. Our system of ensuring the subject
: was fine did not work... I do not remember it as being painful, however
: I did not expect to die from it either.

The program suggested that hypercapnia (to the point of death) did come
with discomfort.

: The problem with this is that it ignores the fact that even if I know
: that my death by hypoxia will be painless I will still dread it. It will
: also not address the objectons that speak firstly to the problem of
: never being absolutely sure in many cases and secondly that what does it
: say about the society that kills people? especially about concepts like
: the possibility of redemption and human change. We are basically saying
: that these people are worthless, we are refusing to accept that we may
: be able to 'cure' them at some time in the future or that even if they
: are in prison to the end of their natural lives, maybe they can do some
: good within that environment during the alloted span of their years. IOW
: the death penalty shows a profound pessimism about the human condition
: and I don't want to live in any society that thinks like that.

I agree with all of this. But what of the people on death row now? If we
have some chance of getting them executed by hypoxia rather than being
fried in the chair, shouldnt we try to achieve that? Otherwise, are we
washing our hands, Pilate style?
Mark

--

Richard Corfield  wrote:
: It is only part of the problem, and there are a lot of emotions around
: it. I was quite surprised by the people who believe it should be made as
: painful as possible, which is very vengeful. There are those who promote
: the death penalty who'd want to include torture in the process too.

Porillo looked visibly surprised by the fanatic at the end, who said that
a just execution is not a painless one, but one that mirrors the suffering
of the original victim.
Mark

--

"Steve Marshall"  wrote in message 
news:13ost92mb2j051e@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>
> However, a large percentage of paedophiles do get rehabilitated.

Evidence please!!!!

>
 >The myth is
> that they can't be changed but that is not the fact of the matter. People 
> can be turned round.

Would you trust a 'reformed' paedophile to babysit your children?  I sure as 
hell wouldn't!
Graham

Richard Corfield wrote:
> On 2008-01-16, Peter Brooks  wrote:
>> Hanging, drawing and quartering used to be popular. I think people who
>> like that sort of thing also like the humiliation and loss of dignity
>> involved, as well as enjoying the schadenfreude.
>>
>> This all seems to me to be highly ignoble. You can understand an
>> individual doing it out of revenge, if pushed to emotional extremes,
>> but, as a cold, calculated, judicial process there is no place for it.
>> Certainly not in any civilised context.
> 
> A Sikh temple I once visited has pictures all around the walls of its
> communal eating room remembering the horrors that have been done to Sikhs
> past, I think quite often by Muslims though there may have been other
> types of perpetrator too. Some of the implements pictured were downright
> nasty. Sikhs remember their past which struck me as odd initially as
> I'd always seen them as a religion that promotes tolerance and all the
> general loving of thy neighbour.
 >
The route to understanding the virtue of tolerance is seldom a primrose 
path.
> 
> I find it hard to contemplate torture, even as punishment. Maybe, so
> those in support say, if I were to meet the people who this would be
> applied to and learn of their crimes, but still it does feel wrong for
> various reasons.
> 
It is wrong, for, as you say, many reasons. We have strong emotional, 
visceral, abhorence for it as a practice.

People who support it have similarly strong emotional reaction to the 
people who commit the crimes.

So I don't think it is that difficult to understand. There's a very good 
German horror film, called 'Funny Games' that involves a couple of 
sadistic criminals. It is cleverly constructed so that the only visible 
violence appeals to the a civilised audience as just. It is worth a watch.

Steve Marshall wrote:
> 
> 
> However, a large percentage of paedophiles do get rehabilitated. The myth is 
> that they can't be changed but that is not the fact of the matter. People 
> can be turned round.
> I think people should be given the chance to change and that the purpose of 
> imprisonment should be to rehabilitate and not to punish.
> 
> Perhaps, as a last resort, execution could return, but I don't see it as a 
> solution to the overcrowded prisons, for example, only as a means to rid 
> society of people unable to be allowed out in public safely. I don't think 
> it is an issue to campaign on.
> 
I think that considering that people who have committed terrible crimes 
are 'scum' who are only to be kept alive because of their potential 
reform is not treating them as human beings either.

The point about being civilised enough to cede the right to life to all 
human beings (maybe all self-conscious sentient beings) is that it is 
not a utilitarian position. It is a position that is held because of a 
respect for the mere existence of other self-conscious beings, no matter 
how much you may disagree with them or hate what they have done. People 
are kept in prison or secure mental hospitals for life because to kill 
them would be to show limits to that respect (and thus allow you, on 
utilitarian grounds, to also kill other 'useless' people, like the old, 
infirm, stupid or mad).

Obviously the ideal is for people to all be civilised enough to live in 
relative harmony with each other, and, if some people are a constant 
lethal danger to other, then prison might be the only place for them - 
until, perhaps, transportation to the moon or Mars becomes an option, 
Australia being full.

The irony is, of course, that we imprison for life people responsible 
for the death of one or two others, whilst leaving those responsible for 
the death of thousands or millions to die peacefully and free in their 
own beds.

Mark.Wright@bristol.ac.uk wrote:
> Richard Corfield  wrote:
> : It is only part of the problem, and there are a lot of emotions around
> : it. I was quite surprised by the people who believe it should be made as
> : painful as possible, which is very vengeful. There are those who promote
> : the death penalty who'd want to include torture in the process too.
> 
> Porillo looked visibly surprised by the fanatic at the end, who said that
> a just execution is not a painless one, but one that mirrors the suffering
> of the original victim.
> 
He shouldn't be. That is a rational utilitarian position. Jeremy Bentham 
argued that punishment should inflict no more suffering than caused by 
the offence. He was suggesting this as a limitation similar to the 
biblical limitation to simply an eye for an eye, but it can be read as 
saying that, in a utilitarian calculus, applying equal suffering to one 
who causes suffering is just compensation.

If you hold this position, then you have to also accept a Portia-like 
view. Causing an iota more suffering to the criminal than the criminal 
caused is, itself, a criminal act. So, if the criminal has a slightly 
higher pain threshold than the dead person, equal physical treatment 
would be wrong.

On 2008-01-17, Peter H.M.Brooks  wrote:
>
> If you hold this position, then you have to also accept a Portia-like 
> view. Causing an iota more suffering to the criminal than the criminal 
> caused is, itself, a criminal act. So, if the criminal has a slightly 
> higher pain threshold than the dead person, equal physical treatment 
> would be wrong.

It's so hard to measure suffering that would be hard to manage.

 - Richard

-- 
   _/_/_/  _/_/_/  _/_/_/     Richard Corfield 
  _/  _/    _/    _/          
 _/_/      _/    _/                Time is a one way street,               
_/  _/  _/_/    _/_/_/                     except in the Twilight Zone

On 2008-01-17, Peter H.M.Brooks  wrote:
> So I don't think it is that difficult to understand. There's a very good 
> German horror film, called 'Funny Games' that involves a couple of 
> sadistic criminals. It is cleverly constructed so that the only visible 
> violence appeals to the a civilised audience as just. It is worth a watch.

The reviews on Amazon look interesting. There's some good stuff made
outside Hollywood.

 - Richard

-- 
   _/_/_/  _/_/_/  _/_/_/     Richard Corfield 
  _/  _/    _/    _/          
 _/_/      _/    _/                Time is a one way street,               
_/  _/  _/_/    _/_/_/                     except in the Twilight Zone

Richard Corfield wrote:
> On 2008-01-17, Peter H.M.Brooks  wrote:
>> If you hold this position, then you have to also accept a Portia-like 
>> view. Causing an iota more suffering to the criminal than the criminal 
>> caused is, itself, a criminal act. So, if the criminal has a slightly 
>> higher pain threshold than the dead person, equal physical treatment 
>> would be wrong.
> 
> It's so hard to measure suffering that would be hard to manage.
> 
Quite, so, because of that, it is wrong to try to inflict similar 
suffering as there is no way of knowing if it is not, in fact, worse. So 
this destroys the utilitarian argument for torture as punishment.

Richard Corfield wrote:
> On 2008-01-17, Peter H.M.Brooks  wrote:
>> So I don't think it is that difficult to understand. There's a very good 
>> German horror film, called 'Funny Games' that involves a couple of 
>> sadistic criminals. It is cleverly constructed so that the only visible 
>> violence appeals to the a civilised audience as just. It is worth a watch.
> 
> The reviews on Amazon look interesting. There's some good stuff made
> outside Hollywood.
> 
Not everything outside Hollywood is good (just as it is true that not 
everything produced in Hollywood is bad), but a remarkably high 
proportion of films from most of the rest of the world are good.

I'm sad that the Dogma movement seems to have come to an end - they 
produced a good many absolutely first-rate films, nothing like anything 
that has ever come from Hollywood.

On Jan 17, 4:25 am, "Peter H.M.Brooks"  wrote:
> Mark.Wri...@bristol.ac.uk wrote:
> > Richard Corfield  wrote:
> > : It is only part of the problem, and there are a lot of emotions around
> > : it. I was quite surprised by the people who believe it should be made as
> > : painful as possible, which is very vengeful. There are those who promote
> > : the death penalty who'd want to include torture in the process too.
>
> > Porillo looked visibly surprised by the fanatic at the end, who said that
> > a just execution is not a painless one, but one that mirrors the suffering
> > of the original victim.
>
> He shouldn't be. That is a rational utilitarian position. Jeremy Bentham
> argued that punishment should inflict no more suffering than caused by
> the offence.

Fine.

> He was suggesting this as a limitation similar to the
> biblical limitation to simply an eye for an eye,
> but it can be read as
> saying that, in a utilitarian calculus, applying equal suffering to one
> who causes suffering is just compensation.

I don't see that he is suggesting this at all. Do you have a quote?
Or, please show your figuring using a Benthamite calculus of suffering

Example:

If you tortured the criminal to death thereby putting off two other
murderers from torturing their victims to death in the same way then
you would have a utilitarian argument for execution by torture. I'll
show my figuring: 2 >1.

Of course,  it would be difficult to justify the experiments needed to
prove if execution by torture was actually effective. Should humanists
examine the data from, say, Arab states that have nasty punishments?
What if we find that lopping off arms and heads reduces overall
suffering in the population because of its deterrent effect?

On 2008-01-17, Peter H.M.Brooks  wrote:
>
> The point about being civilised enough to cede the right to life to all 
> human beings (maybe all self-conscious sentient beings) is that it is 
> not a utilitarian position. It is a position that is held because of a 
> respect for the mere existence of other self-conscious beings, no matter 
> how much you may disagree with them or hate what they have done. People 
> are kept in prison or secure mental hospitals for life because to kill 
> them would be to show limits to that respect (and thus allow you, on 
> utilitarian grounds, to also kill other 'useless' people, like the old, 
> infirm, stupid or mad).
>

The BBC have been running a story recently about patients kept in caged
beds. The example shown in their video clip is a problematic one, a
child who wants human contact being kept caged because of lack of staff
time to provide that care.

The discussion is interesting though, as they talk about other ways
of restraining people and when it may need to be done. A caged bed was
better than strapping someone down. A proposed alternative is sedatives.
None of this sounds pleasant though it does raise questions about what
we do for these people.  We do live in a society that sees it as its
duty to care for them.

 - Richard

-- 
   _/_/_/  _/_/_/  _/_/_/     Richard Corfield 
  _/  _/    _/    _/          
 _/_/      _/    _/                Time is a one way street,               
_/  _/  _/_/    _/_/_/                     except in the Twilight Zone

On 2008-01-17, Peter H.M.Brooks  wrote:
>> 
> Not everything outside Hollywood is good (just as it is true that not 
> everything produced in Hollywood is bad), but a remarkably high 
> proportion of films from most of the rest of the world are good.
>
> I'm sad that the Dogma movement seems to have come to an end - they 
> produced a good many absolutely first-rate films, nothing like anything 
> that has ever come from Hollywood.

I think a nice thing is that they are outside the normal Hollywood
pattern which can get tiring after a while. In one I watched recently
there was more acting and theatre which is a change over the "Big Epic"
that Hollywood seems to produce.

 - Richard

-- 
   _/_/_/  _/_/_/  _/_/_/     Richard Corfield 
  _/  _/    _/    _/          
 _/_/      _/    _/                Time is a one way street,               
_/  _/  _/_/    _/_/_/                     except in the Twilight Zone

On Jan 17, 9:16 am, "Peter H.M.Brooks"  wrote:
> Richard Corfield wrote:
> > On 2008-01-17, Peter H.M.Brooks  wrote:
> >> If you hold this position, then you have to also accept a Portia-like
> >> view. Causing an iota more suffering to the criminal than the criminal
> >> caused is, itself, a criminal act. So, if the criminal has a slightly
> >> higher pain threshold than the dead person, equal physical treatment
> >> would be wrong.
>
> > It's so hard to measure suffering that would be hard to manage.
>
> Quite, so, because of that, it is wrong to try to inflict similar
> suffering as there is no way of knowing if it is not, in fact, worse. So
> this destroys the utilitarian argument for torture as punishment.

You can still make 'reasonable estimates'. If execution by torture
deters, say, on average, 5 murders by torture can it be doubted that
overall suffering has been reduced?

Paul Grieg wrote:
> On Jan 17, 4:25 am, "Peter H.M.Brooks"  wrote:
>> Mark.Wri...@bristol.ac.uk wrote:
>>> Richard Corfield  wrote:
>>> : It is only part of the problem, and there are a lot of emotions around
>>> : it. I was quite surprised by the people who believe it should be made as
>>> : painful as possible, which is very vengeful. There are those who promote
>>> : the death penalty who'd want to include torture in the process too.
>>> Porillo looked visibly surprised by the fanatic at the end, who said that
>>> a just execution is not a painless one, but one that mirrors the suffering
>>> of the original victim.
>> He shouldn't be. That is a rational utilitarian position. Jeremy Bentham
>> argued that punishment should inflict no more suffering than caused by
>> the offence.
> 
> Fine.
> 
>> He was suggesting this as a limitation similar to the
>> biblical limitation to simply an eye for an eye,
>> but it can be read as
>> saying that, in a utilitarian calculus, applying equal suffering to one
>> who causes suffering is just compensation.
> 
> I don't see that he is suggesting this at all. Do you have a quote?
> Or, please show your figuring using a Benthamite calculus of suffering
> 
> Example:
> 
> If you tortured the criminal to death thereby putting off two other
> murderers from torturing their victims to death in the same way then
> you would have a utilitarian argument for execution by torture. I'll
> show my figuring: 2 >1.
> 
> Of course,  it would be difficult to justify the experiments needed to
> prove if execution by torture was actually effective. Should humanists
> examine the data from, say, Arab states that have nasty punishments?
> What if we find that lopping off arms and heads reduces overall
> suffering in the population because of its deterrent effect?
 >
You'd have to prove that it deterred - most evidence to date shows that 
it does not. Pickpockets famously attended the public executions of 
pickpockets.

Paul Grieg wrote:
> On Jan 17, 9:16 am, "Peter H.M.Brooks"  wrote:
>> Richard Corfield wrote:
>>> On 2008-01-17, Peter H.M.Brooks  wrote:
>>>> If you hold this position, then you have to also accept a Portia-like
>>>> view. Causing an iota more suffering to the criminal than the criminal
>>>> caused is, itself, a criminal act. So, if the criminal has a slightly
>>>> higher pain threshold than the dead person, equal physical treatment
>>>> would be wrong.
>>> It's so hard to measure suffering that would be hard to manage.
>> Quite, so, because of that, it is wrong to try to inflict similar
>> suffering as there is no way of knowing if it is not, in fact, worse. So
>> this destroys the utilitarian argument for torture as punishment.
> 
> You can still make 'reasonable estimates'. If execution by torture
> deters, say, on average, 5 murders by torture can it be doubted that
> overall suffering has been reduced?
 >
As I pointed out in another post, the problem is that extreme punishment 
seems not to deter. A high chance of apprehension seems to be the 
greatest deterrent, pretty well independent of what the punishment is.

On Jan 17, 4:33 am, "graham"  wrote:
> "Steve Marshall"  wrote in message
>
> news:13ost92mb2j051e@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
>
> > However, a large percentage of paedophiles do get rehabilitated.
>
> Evidence please!!!!
>

I did post some evidence from an American Psychologist article a while
ago. That article was a meta-analysis of reoffending over various
lengths of time (I think most of the studies were over five years).
More than 50% did not re-offend.
>
>
>
>  >The myth is
> > that they can't be changed but that is not the fact of the matter. People
> > can be turned round.
>
> Would you trust a 'reformed' paedophile to babysit your children?  I sure as
> hell wouldn't!

Neither would I. But then that is asking rather a lot. Still I would
rather have a reformed paedophile that everyone knows about with my
kids than an unconvicted and unknown paedophile who can much more
easily manipulate the situation to satisfy his weird desires.

Lance

> Graham

Paul Grieg  wrote:

> On Jan 16, 3:46 pm, pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter Ashby) wrote:
> >  wrote:
> > > There was an excellent Horizon last night, with Michael Portillo on a
> > > quest to see if he can find a "humane" form of execution.
> >
> > >http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/tx/execu...
> > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7183957.stm
> >
> > I must see if I can watch it again.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/

Alas, I live in the wilderness of not being a Windoze user. Fortunately
I have cable tv.

Peter
-- 
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country
www.the-brights.net

wrote:

> : The problem with this is that it ignores the fact that even if I know
> : that my death by hypoxia will be painless I will still dread it. It will
> : also not address the objectons that speak firstly to the problem of
> : never being absolutely sure in many cases and secondly that what does it
> : say about the society that kills people? especially about concepts like
> : the possibility of redemption and human change. We are basically saying
> : that these people are worthless, we are refusing to accept that we may
> : be able to 'cure' them at some time in the future or that even if they
> : are in prison to the end of their natural lives, maybe they can do some
> : good within that environment during the alloted span of their years. IOW
> : the death penalty shows a profound pessimism about the human condition
> : and I don't want to live in any society that thinks like that.
> 
> I agree with all of this. But what of the people on death row now? If we
> have some chance of getting them executed by hypoxia rather than being
> fried in the chair, shouldnt we try to achieve that? Otherwise, are we
> washing our hands, Pilate style?

No, we should be pushing the point that not even hypoxia passes muster
as not being a cruel or unusual punishment if the criminal is aware of
what is about to happen to them. Through this we can therefore make
execution unthinkable. We have just about achieved this wrt lethal
injection along with help from the anaesthetists and nurses refusing to
be involved.

Peter
-- 
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country
www.the-brights.net

On Jan 17, 3:57 pm, pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter Ashby) wrote:
>
>
> No, we should be pushing the point that not even hypoxia passes muster
> as not being a cruel or unusual punishment if the criminal is aware of
> what is about to happen to them. Through this we can therefore make
> execution unthinkable. We have just about achieved this wrt lethal
> injection along with help from the anaesthetists and nurses refusing to
> be involved.
>
I agree.

Ironically, it would make one execution OK because it wasn't cruel, at
least for that reason. In the US a feebleminded person didn't finish
his final meal - he told the warders that he'd finish it when he 'got
back'. Clearly he didn't suffer any cruel anticipation of what people
were about to do to him.

It seems to me that the nicer you make the killiing, the more killings
there will be and the more people will vote for the killings.  Of
course that will also mean the more innocent people will be killed.
Perhaps Portillo  would not mind that, which is why he made the  show
- which I suppose was made for selling to American TV.  However he
voted against the death penalty because of miscarriages of justice, so
perhaps he merely made the show for cash and there was no other
motivation or meaning involved.

On Jan 17, 8:54 pm, John Brockbank 
wrote:
> It seems to me that the nicer you make the killiing, the more killings
> there will be and the more people will vote for the killings.  Of
> course that will also mean the more innocent people will be killed.
>
Not necessarily.

To me the much more chilling near-science fiction notion is that a
workable lie detector might one day be invented. Maybe you can have a
brain scan that can actually tell if there was a deliberate intent to
kill somebody or not - you could use judicial executioners as your
control sample. That way you'd know that you had killed no innocent
people - so long as you could also tell genuine memories from
confabulation.

I think we'll be saved from this only by that last qualification. I
don't think that it is possible (from what I can tell from the latest
research) ultimately to tell the difference between a memory and a
confabulation because, to the brain, there isn't a difference.

"graham"  wrote


> Would you trust a 'reformed' paedophile to babysit your children?  I sure 
> as hell wouldn't!

I don't think that would be prudent. Such people shouldn't be allowed to 
have jobs involving supervision of children.

Steve M

On 2008-01-17, Peter Brooks  wrote:
> Not necessarily.
>
> To me the much more chilling near-science fiction notion is that a
> workable lie detector might one day be invented. Maybe you can have a
> brain scan that can actually tell if there was a deliberate intent to
> kill somebody or not - you could use judicial executioners as your
> control sample. That way you'd know that you had killed no innocent
> people - so long as you could also tell genuine memories from
> confabulation.
>
> I think we'll be saved from this only by that last qualification. I
> don't think that it is possible (from what I can tell from the latest
> research) ultimately to tell the difference between a memory and a
> confabulation because, to the brain, there isn't a difference.

False memories are possible, and it is possible that the person carrying
them believes them. Do we still condemn on the basis that we have a
person who's current mental state includes killing, even if they didn't
actually kill? Do they carry the killing habit patterns?

Worse would be attempts to detect the tendency to crime before it is
committed.

 - Richard

-- 
   _/_/_/  _/_/_/  _/_/_/     Richard Corfield 
  _/  _/    _/    _/          
 _/_/      _/    _/                Time is a one way street,               
_/  _/  _/_/    _/_/_/                     except in the Twilight Zone

"Lance"  wrote in message 
news:19339ddd-c79a-44b5-ae96-55b8f2d616e1@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 17, 4:33 am, "graham"  wrote:
> "Steve Marshall"  wrote in message
>
> news:13ost92mb2j051e@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
>
> > However, a large percentage of paedophiles do get rehabilitated.
>
> Evidence please!!!!
>

I did post some evidence from an American Psychologist article a while
ago. That article was a meta-analysis of reoffending over various
lengths of time (I think most of the studies were over five years).
More than 50% did not re-offend.
>
Did the study take into consideration that they were almost certainly under 
observation?
Graham

On Jan 18, 2:16 am, Richard Corfield 
wrote:
> On 2008-01-17, Peter Brooks  wrote:
>
> > Not necessarily.
>
> > To me the much more chilling near-science fiction notion is that a
> > workable lie detector might one day be invented. Maybe you can have a
> > brain scan that can actually tell if there was a deliberate intent to
> > kill somebody or not - you could use judicial executioners as your
> > control sample. That way you'd know that you had killed no innocent
> > people - so long as you could also tell genuine memories from
> > confabulation.
>
> > I think we'll be saved from this only by that last qualification. I
> > don't think that it is possible (from what I can tell from the latest
> > research) ultimately to tell the difference between a memory and a
> > confabulation because, to the brain, there isn't a difference.
>
> False memories are possible, and it is possible that the person carrying
> them believes them. Do we still condemn on the basis that we have a
> person who's current mental state includes killing, even if they didn't
> actually kill? Do they carry the killing habit patterns?
>
> Worse would be attempts to detect the tendency to crime before it is
> committed.
>
Which was the plot of the film Gattica.

Is it worse, though?

If your reaction to crime is to punish, then, yes, there is something
wrong in detecting potential crime and punishing innocent potential
criminals for it.

If your reaction to crime is prevention and protection for the
potential victims, then it is a little different.

I think that my proposal to use existing laws against lunatics
standing for public office to exclude psychopaths fits exactly into
the latter category. If we can detect psychopaths reliably, then it is
reasonable to exclude them from public office on the grounds that
humane human being require people in such positions of power to be
constrained by empathy and a conscience.

It would be wrong to imprison for life potential mass murderers,
warmongerers and abusers of international law, but it would be right
to keep them from being in a position where the temptation to abuse
their position to kill and maim thousands of people would be too great
for them to resist.

On Jan 18, 4:26 am, "graham"  wrote:
> "Lance"  wrote in message
>
> news:19339ddd-c79a-44b5-ae96-55b8f2d616e1@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 17, 4:33 am, "graham"  wrote:
>
> > "Steve Marshall"  wrote in message
>
> >news:13ost92mb2j051e@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > > However, a large percentage of paedophiles do get rehabilitated.
>
> > Evidence please!!!!
>
> I did post some evidence from an American Psychologist article a while
> ago. That article was a meta-analysis of reoffending over various
> lengths of time (I think most of the studies were over five years).
> More than 50% did not re-offend.
>
> Did the study take into consideration that they were almost certainly under
> observation?
> Graham

Gee, aren't all criminals studied for recidivism rates under
observation? Recidvism occurs quite frequently for some crimes, and
quite rarely for others. Murder, when the crime was one of passion,
for example, has very low recidivism rates. But drugs and theft have
high recidivism rates. Observation of ex-cons relates, I suppose, to
being caught by the police again, but any ex-con will tell you that
their criminal record causes them to be treated with extreme caution.
Anyway, I'm not sure that the "observation" is any more stringent for
a for a sex offender than for a violent murderer or a robbery with
violence offender. And both groups can and do try to deceive people
sometimes...

Lance

On Jan 18, 6:17 am, Peter Brooks  wrote:
> On Jan 18, 2:16 am, Richard Corfield 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 2008-01-17, Peter Brooks  wrote:
>
> > > Not necessarily.
>
> > > To me the much more chilling near-science fiction notion is that a
> > > workable lie detector might one day be invented. Maybe you can have a
> > > brain scan that can actually tell if there was a deliberate intent to
> > > kill somebody or not - you could use judicial executioners as your
> > > control sample. That way you'd know that you had killed no innocent
> > > people - so long as you could also tell genuine memories from
> > > confabulation.
>
> > > I think we'll be saved from this only by that last qualification. I
> > > don't think that it is possible (from what I can tell from the latest
> > > research) ultimately to tell the difference between a memory and a
> > > confabulation because, to the brain, there isn't a difference.
>
> > False memories are possible, and it is possible that the person carrying> > them believes them. Do we still condemn on the basis that we have a
> > person who's current mental state includes killing, even if they didn't
> > actually kill? Do they carry the killing habit patterns?
>
> > Worse would be attempts to detect the tendency to crime before it is
> > committed.
>
> Which was the plot of the film Gattica.
>
> Is it worse, though?
>
> If your reaction to crime is to punish, then, yes, there is something
> wrong in detecting potential crime and punishing innocent potential
> criminals for it.
>
> If your reaction to crime is prevention and protection for the
> potential victims, then it is a little different.
>
> I think that my proposal to use existing laws against lunatics
> standing for public office to exclude psychopaths fits exactly into
> the latter category. If we can detect psychopaths reliably, then it is
> reasonable to exclude them from public office on the grounds that
> humane human being require people in such positions of power to be
> constrained by empathy and a conscience.

Do you not think that there might be some circumstances when a
psychpath's talents would exactly suit him or her for office?

Lance

>
> It would be wrong to imprison for life potential mass murderers,
> warmongerers and abusers of international law, but it would be right
> to keep them from being in a position where the temptation to abuse
> their position to kill and maim thousands of people would be too great
> for them to resist.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Lance wrote:
> 
>>
>> I think that my proposal to use existing laws against lunatics
>> standing for public office to exclude psychopaths fits exactly into
>> the latter category. If we can detect psychopaths reliably, then it is
>> reasonable to exclude them from public office on the grounds that
>> humane human being require people in such positions of power to be
>> constrained by empathy and a conscience.
> 
> Do you not think that there might be some circumstances when a
> psychpath's talents would exactly suit him or her for office?
> 
No, I can't. What have you in mind?

I can see that psychopaths can be useful, but that is a different 
matter. If you wanted to, say, police gangsters, a psychopath might be a 
useful person to go beyond psychological profiling and help catch 
gangsters by understanding them more clearly than a normal person could.

Psychopaths are probably good people to man call centres that receive 
lots of complaints as they'd be unlikely to be upset personally by the 
complaints (there's the danger that they might take direct action, I 
suppose, against some complainants).

If you have a business hiring out hatchet men to perform massive 
workforce reduction programmes a psychopath recruitment policy might be 
sound - but only for short-term, low-margin companies that don't give a 
shit about workforce morale.

I'm sure that psychopaths are useful to the military.

On Jan 18, 9:12 am, "Peter H.M.Brooks"  wrote:
> Lance wrote:
>
> >> I think that my proposal to use existing laws against lunatics
> >> standing for public office to exclude psychopaths fits exactly into
> >> the latter category. If we can detect psychopaths reliably, then it is
> >> reasonable to exclude them from public office on the grounds that
> >> humane human being require people in such positions of power to be
> >> constrained by empathy and a conscience.
>
> > Do you not think that there might be some circumstances when a
> > psychpath's talents would exactly suit him or her for office?
>
> No, I can't. What have you in mind?
>
> I can see that psychopaths can be useful, but that is a different
> matter. If you wanted to, say, police gangsters, a psychopath might be a
> useful person to go beyond psychological profiling and help catch
> gangsters by understanding them more clearly than a normal person could.

Good point. There's a whole new cop show in that idea!

> Psychopaths are probably good people to man call centres that receive
> lots of complaints as they'd be unlikely to be upset personally by the
> complaints.

You should add smileys after such suggestions.

>(there's the danger that they might take direct action, I
> suppose, against some complainants).

:-)

> I'm sure that psychopaths are useful to the military.

In what sense? Any use of them would go against any notion of a just
war thereby
making the military unjust. And justice should never be ignored by the
military of a just country, otherwise the country becomes unjust. An
unjust country is not worth defending, making the military redundant.

On Jan 18, 12:38 pm, Paul Grieg  wrote:
>
>
> > I'm sure that psychopaths are useful to the military.
>
> In what sense?
>
I was intending to be ironic. The military, like psychopaths, view
human beings as objects that have their uses. So they'd view them as
'useful' completing the ironic circle.

My reference point is probably best expressed by Frank Zappa and the
Mothers of Invention album - 'Billy the Mountain'. Also, Arno
Guthrie's 'Alice's Restaurant'.

"Peter H.M.Brooks"  wrote

> I think that considering that people who have committed terrible crimes 
> are 'scum' who are only to be kept alive because of their potential reform 
> is not treating them as human beings either.

So don't keep them alive (?)
What if they can't be reformed or if they aren't going to be let out?

> The point about being civilised enough to cede the right to life to all 
> human beings (maybe all self-conscious sentient beings) is that it is not 
> a utilitarian position. It is a position that is held because of a respect 
> for the mere existence of other self-conscious beings, no matter how much 
> you may disagree with them or hate what they have done. People are kept in 
> prison or secure mental hospitals for life because to kill them would be 
> to show limits to that respect (and thus allow you, on utilitarian 
> grounds, to also kill other 'useless' people, like the old, infirm, stupid 
> or mad).

Sounds like a religion! Why should the state pay to keep people alive in 
prison? Apparently, to avoid feeling guilty.
People that are old, mad, stupid and infirm don't generally pose a threat to 
the reast of the population. It's only those very few that are intent upon 
deliberately doing harm to society that might be considered.
I would agree that we need to value life. In conservation however there is 
often the need to eradicate one type to favour another. We allow the 
destruction of everything around us. How civilised !

> The irony is, of course, that we imprison for life people responsible for 
> the death of one or two others, whilst leaving those responsible for the 
> death of thousands or millions to die peacefully and free in their own 
> beds.

Oh, you mean those religious guys that say it's wrong to kill?

Steve M

"Peter Ashby"  wrote

> No, we should be pushing the point that not even hypoxia passes muster
> as not being a cruel or unusual punishment if the criminal is aware of
> what is about to happen to them. Through this we can therefore make
> execution unthinkable. We have just about achieved this wrt lethal
> injection along with help from the anaesthetists and nurses refusing to
> be involved.

If execution of prisoners is unthinkable wouldn't that make assisted 
suicides equally unthinkable?

Steve M

Steve Marshall wrote:
> "Peter Ashby"  wrote
> 
>> No, we should be pushing the point that not even hypoxia passes muster
>> as not being a cruel or unusual punishment if the criminal is aware of
>> what is about to happen to them. Through this we can therefore make
>> execution unthinkable. We have just about achieved this wrt lethal
>> injection along with help from the anaesthetists and nurses refusing to
>> be involved.
> 
> If execution of prisoners is unthinkable wouldn't that make assisted 
> suicides equally unthinkable?
> 
Where is the connection? We can see that rape and normal sexual 
intercourse share similar mechanics, but an argument that rape is wrong 
doesn't carry any implication that normal sexual intercourse is wrong 
and I can't see why it should.

Peter Brooks  wrote:
:> Worse would be attempts to detect the tendency to crime before it is
:> committed.
:>
: Which was the plot of the film Gattica.

You might mean 'Minority Report', although Gattica is also excellent.

Mark

"Peter H.M.Brooks"  wrote
Steve put..
>> If execution of prisoners is unthinkable wouldn't that make assisted 
>> suicides equally unthinkable?
>>
> Where is the connection? We can see that rape and normal sexual 
> intercourse share similar mechanics, but an argument that rape is wrong 
> doesn't carry any implication that normal sexual intercourse is wrong and 
> I can't see why it should.

It's not the sex act as such that's wrong in a rape - it's the intrusion and 
violation of a persons' rights, the violence and so on.

What is it that's so unthinkable about ending the life of a murderer? Why 
should society be forced to pay to keep them alive? Why should we risk 
having them around? Occasionally prisoners break out and reoffend. It's 
unthinkable to let them out to reoffend  - but that does happen.

Steve M

On Jan 21, 1:37 am, Mark.Wri...@bristol.ac.uk wrote:
> Peter Brooks  wrote:
>
> :> Worse would be attempts to detect the tendency to crime before it is
> :> committed.
> :>
> : Which was the plot of the film Gattica.
>
> You might mean 'Minority Report', although Gattica is also excellent.
>
My confusion, yes, thank you!

On Jan 21, 2:45 am, "Steve Marshall" 
wrote:
> "Peter H.M.Brooks"  wrote
> Steve put..
>
> >> If execution of prisoners is unthinkable wouldn't that make assisted
> >> suicides equally unthinkable?
>
> > Where is the connection? We can see that rape and normal sexual
> > intercourse share similar mechanics, but an argument that rape is wrong
> > doesn't carry any implication that normal sexual intercourse is wrong and
> > I can't see why it should.
>
> It's not the sex act as such that's wrong in a rape - it's the intrusion and
> violation of a persons' rights, the violence and so on.
>
Quite. The fact that it is not consensual is what makes the
difference, even non-violent non-consensual sex has been found to be
rape.

Actually even consensual sex when parties have been, in their opinion
afterwards, not sufficiently conscious to give consent have sometimes
been claimed to be rape.
>
> What is it that's so unthinkable about ending the life of a murderer? Why
> should society be forced to pay to keep them alive? Why should we risk
> having them around? Occasionally prisoners break out and reoffend. It's
> unthinkable to let them out to reoffend  - but that does happen.
>
I was addressing the question about the difference between assisted
suicide and execution, it is the same as with rape, the one is
consensual, the other is not.

What is so 'unthinkable' - obviously not the right word as it happens
almost every day in the US or China, and we are thinking about it here
- is the violent, non-consensual killing of human beings.

The objection to murder is exactly the same as the objection to
execution. If you think that murderers should be executed, then why
should you have any objection to people like Dr. Shipman who makes a
similar decision, based in his case on long clinical experience, on
whether certain old people should live. Dr. Shipman also, like you,
had an economic dimension to his decisions?

Though there are many arguments against killing people, the main one
is that it is wrong to kill self-conscious agents without their
consent.

On 21 Jan, 00:45, "Steve Marshall"  wrote:
>
> What is it that's so unthinkable about ending the life of a murderer? Why
> should society be forced to pay to keep them alive? Why should we risk
> having them around? Occasionally prisoners break out and reoffend. It's
> unthinkable to let them out to reoffend  - but that does happen.
>
> Steve M

You're seeing everything in black and white rather than in shades of
grey.  Some people are wrongly convicted. Some people murder under
provocation or extreme stress.  Some murderers have brain damage or
are of very low intelligence.  The whole notion of moral
responsibility is suspect  from a determinist perspective.  What sort
of society simply exterminates its problem citizens?  A long list of
such doubts and qualifications could be compiled.

Dave

On Jan 21, 1:16 pm, Dave Smith  wrote:
> On 21 Jan, 00:45, "Steve Marshall"  wrote:
>
> What sort of society simply exterminates its problem citizens?  
>
Presumably the answer to that question would be one that is at war
with its citizens. Some people justify killing in war, so a country in
civil war is one that exterminates what it sees as its problem
citizens. If war justifies killing then this would be one way of doing
it.

"Dave Smith"  wrote

> You're seeing everything in black and white rather than in shades of
> grey.

Not really. I would only consider a certian minority of criminals who could 
not or would not be rehabilitated.

> Some people are wrongly convicted. Some people murder under
> provocation or extreme stress.  Some murderers have brain damage or
> are of very low intelligence.

Yes, I am aware of that. If executions were to take place there would have 
to be considerations for the safety of the case and conviction and 
rehabilitation and assessments would need to be looked at. I wouldn't have 
execution as a punishment for a crime and have said that  we should more 
away from the idea of punishing criminals.
My suggestion is that we shold aim to rehabilitate criminals so that they 
don't reoffend. If we can't or they aren't willing then keeping them in 
prison forever seems a bit pointless.

Steve M

"Peter Brooks"  wrote

On Jan 21, 1:16 pm, Dave Smith  wrote:

>
> What sort of society simply exterminates its problem citizens?
>
Presumably the answer to that question would be one that is at war
with its citizens. Some people justify killing in war, so a country in
civil war is one that exterminates what it sees as its problem
citizens. If war justifies killing then this would be one way of doing
it.

I don't think anyone has proposed 'simply exterminating problem citizens'.

Steve M

"Peter Brooks"  wrote
> It's not the sex act as such that's wrong in a rape - it's the intrusion 
> and
> violation of a persons' rights, the violence and so on.
>
> Quite. The fact that it is not consensual is what makes the
> difference, even non-violent non-consensual sex has been found to be
> rape.

I accept the issue is as simplistic as consent. I don't think rape victims 
turn round and complain that they weren't asked.
I watch some of the videos of police arrests that get broadcast in the early 
hours. People tend not to give consent for the police to arrest them. Your 
suggesting that a police arrest is equivalent to a rape.

> What is it that's so unthinkable about ending the life of a murderer? Why
> should society be forced to pay to keep them alive? Why should we risk
> having them around? Occasionally prisoners break out and reoffend. It's
> unthinkable to let them out to reoffend - but that does happen.
>
I was addressing the question about the difference between assisted
suicide and execution, it is the same as with rape, the one is
consensual, the other is not.

So, if you give them the chioce of whether they push the button themselves, 
you'd be happy?

> The objection to murder is exactly the same as the objection to
> execution.

I don't think they are. People in a society have certain rights to life. 
People that repeatedly abuse such rights with violent crime cannot be part 
of that society. They are removed from it permanently. They aren't going 
back and won't regain the privileges and freedoms we enjoy. The standard way 
to deal with such people is to 'punish' them and  leave them in jail for the 
rest of their lives. That's arguably more inhumane than ending their lives. 
They don't have the prospects that a free person does.

Steve M

On 21 Jan, 21:51, "Steve Marshall"  wrote:

> My suggestion is that we shold aim to rehabilitate criminals so that they
> don't reoffend. If we can't or they aren't willing then keeping them in
> prison forever seems a bit pointless.
>
> Steve M

It's difficult to know who can be rehabilitated, and few lifers are
held in captivity until they die in the UK.

Dave

On 21 Jan, 13:19, Peter Brooks  wrote:
> On Jan 21, 1:16 pm, Dave Smith  wrote:> On 21 Jan, 00:45, "Steve Marshall"  wrote:
>
> > What sort of society simply exterminates its problem citizens?  
>
> Presumably the answer to that question would be one that is at war
> with its citizens. Some people justify killing in war, so a country in
> civil war is one that exterminates what it sees as its problem
> citizens. If war justifies killing then this would be one way of doing
> it.

Capital punishment might be lumped together with war, abortion,
euthanasia etc., by inquiring into ' the justification for killing'.
A rather complicated issue.......

Dave

On Jan 22, 12:14 am, "Steve Marshall" 
wrote:
> "Peter Brooks"  wrote
>
> > It's not the sex act as such that's wrong in a rape - it's the intrusion> > and
> > violation of a persons' rights, the violence and so on.
>
> > Quite. The fact that it is not consensual is what makes the
> > difference, even non-violent non-consensual sex has been found to be
> > rape.
>
> I accept the issue is as simplistic as consent. I don't think rape victims> turn round and complain that they weren't asked.
> I watch some of the videos of police arrests that get broadcast in the early
> hours. People tend not to give consent for the police to arrest them. Your> suggesting that a police arrest is equivalent to a rape.
>
No, I'm explaining why voluntary euthanasia is different from
execution.

State violence is not voluntary, I agree. That is why legal systems
try to ensure that it is only used in carefully controlled ways - we
see what happens in places like Zimbabwe when state violence is not
under much, or any, control. The notion behind it all is that, if the
state has a monopoly over violence then vendettas can be prevented,
particularly if state violence is directed against aggressors and not
victims.
>
> > What is it that's so unthinkable about ending the life of a murderer? Why
> > should society be forced to pay to keep them alive? Why should we risk
> > having them around? Occasionally prisoners break out and reoffend. It's
> > unthinkable to let them out to reoffend - but that does happen.
>
> I was addressing the question about the difference between assisted
> suicide and execution, it is the same as with rape, the one is
> consensual, the other is not.
>
> So, if you give them the chioce of whether they push the button themselves> you'd be happy?
>
I'm not sure who you mean by 'they' and I'm not sure what sort of
circumstances you're thinking about. If you suggest that you string
somebody up in a gibbot with the option of starving or hanging
himself, then, no, I don't see this as a way of making it similar to
euthanasia.
>
> > The objection to murder is exactly the same as the objection to
> > execution.
>
> I don't think they are. People in a society have certain rights to life.
> People that repeatedly abuse such rights with violent crime cannot be part> of that society. They are removed from it permanently. They aren't going
> back and won't regain the privileges and freedoms we enjoy. The standard way
> to deal with such people is to 'punish' them and  leave them in jail for the
> rest of their lives. That's arguably more inhumane than ending their lives> They don't have the prospects that a free person does.
>
A dead person has fewer prospects.

You're talking about conditional rights, which doesn't make sense.
Either something is, or is not, a right.

People who murder one person and are caught are removed and put in
prison. People who murder thousands or millions tend not to be. That
isn't just either. Why aren't you asking for the execution of anybody
who prosecutes an illegal war?

On Jan 21, 11:53 pm, "Steve Marshall" 
wrote:
> "Peter Brooks"  wrote
>
> On Jan 21, 1:16 pm, Dave Smith  wrote:
>
>
>
> > What sort of society simply exterminates its problem citizens?
>
> Presumably the answer to that question would be one that is at war
> with its citizens. Some people justify killing in war, so a country in
> civil war is one that exterminates what it sees as its problem
> citizens. If war justifies killing then this would be one way of doing
> it.
>
> I don't think anyone has proposed 'simply exterminating problem citizens'.Mr Hitler, Mr Pol Pot, Mr Stalin, and Henry VIII all seemed quite keen
on not only proposing, but actually doing, just that - and they are
just three arbitrary examples, there are plenty more.

On Jan 18, 11:41 pm, "Steve Marshall" 
wrote:
> "Peter H.M.Brooks"  wrote
>
> > I think that considering that people who have committed terrible crimes
> > are 'scum' who are only to be kept alive because of their potential reform
> > is not treating them as human beings either.
>
> So don't keep them alive (?)
> What if they can't be reformed or if they aren't going to be let out?
>
> > The point about being civilised enough to cede the right to life to all
> > human beings (maybe all self-conscious sentient beings) is that it is not
> > a utilitarian position. It is a position that is held because of a respect
> > for the mere existence of other self-conscious beings, no matter how much
> > you may disagree with them or hate what they have done. People are kept in
> > prison or secure mental hospitals for life because to kill them would be> > to show limits to that respect (and thus allow you, on utilitarian
> > grounds, to also kill other 'useless' people, like the old, infirm, stupid
> > or mad).
>
> Sounds like a religion! Why should the state pay to keep people alive in
> prison? Apparently, to avoid feeling guilty.
> People that are old, mad, stupid and infirm don't generally pose a threat to
> the reast of the population. It's only those very few that are intent upon> deliberately doing harm to society that might be considered.
> I would agree that we need to value life. In conservation however there is> often the need to eradicate one type to favour another. We allow the
> destruction of everything around us. How civilised !
>
Schizophrenics do present a quite serious threat to other people.
Though many live their lives without violence to anybody, quite a few
come to the conclusion that their friends or family are daemons or
something similar and attack them.

"Peter Brooks"  wrote

> No, I'm explaining why voluntary euthanasia is different from
> execution.

You reduce it to a matter of consent and I've pointed out that government 
agencies, like the police or the courts, don't require your consent.


> State violence is not voluntary, I agree. That is why legal systems
> see what happens in places like Zimbabwe when state violence is not
> under much, or any, control. The notion behind it all is that, if the
> state has a monopoly over violence then vendettas can be prevented,
> particularly if state violence is directed against aggressors and not
> victims.

The point there is the lack of control. There is a certain level of 
corruption in such countries regardless of whether or not it is state 
sanctioned. In Zimbabwe they turn a blind eye to the violence, just as the 
rest of the world seems to have done.

> I was addressing the question about the difference between assisted
> suicide and execution, it is the same as with rape, the one is
> consensual, the other is not.
>
> So, if you give them the chioce of whether they push the button 
> themselves,
> you'd be happy?
>
> I'm not sure who you mean by 'they' and I'm not sure what sort of
> circumstances you're thinking about.

I'm saying if you let the prisoner decide whether to end their lives. You 
determined it is down to a matter of choice, so presummably if you give them 
the choice you'd be happy?

> They don't have the prospects that a free person does.
>
> A dead person has fewer prospects.

It may be the rights of society that are being considered. It isn't right to 
release a dangerous prisoner and put them at risk. And it isn't fair to 
expect them to pay for the prisoners upkeep when they've saught to 
repeatedly do harm

> You're talking about conditional rights, which doesn't make sense.
> Either something is, or is not, a right.

No, I don't believe in moral absolutes. That's what the loony religionists 
bleat on about.

> People who murder one person and are caught are removed and put in
> prison. People who murder thousands or millions tend not to be. That
> isn't just either. Why aren't you asking for the execution of anybody
> who prosecutes an illegal war?

I am suggesting that repeat offenders that can't be rehabilitated should be 
'put down'. The people you refer to tend not to do their own dirty work. 
They give orders and others think obeying such orders is what they should be 
doing. Virtually every Country in the world seems to have a system that 
allows a leader to dictate orders to kill. It is the failure of the world 
that this insane state of affairs is allowed to continue. I don't blame the 
crackpot in charge. Any silly fool can tell someone to go jump through a 
hoop.

Steve M

"Peter Brooks"  wrote

> Mr Hitler, Mr Pol Pot, Mr Stalin, and Henry VIII all seemed quite keen
> on not only proposing, but actually doing, just that - and they are
> just three arbitrary examples, there are plenty more.

Sorry, I didn't see their posts here.

Steve M

On 22 Jan, 23:24, "Steve Marshall"  wrote:
>
> I am suggesting that repeat offenders that can't be rehabilitated should be
> 'put down'.

Presumably you mean murderers, not all recidivists.  Many murderers
are first offenders, or have previously committed property offences
rather than violent offences.  How would it be decided which murderers
can't be rehabilitated?

Dave

On Jan 23, 2:50 am, Dave Smith  wrote:
> On 22 Jan, 23:24, "Steve Marshall"  wrote:
>
>
>
> > I am suggesting that repeat offenders that can't be rehabilitated should be
> > 'put down'.
>
> Presumably you mean murderers, not all recidivists.  Many murderers
> are first offenders, or have previously committed property offences
> rather than violent offences.  How would it be decided which murderers
> can't be rehabilitated?
>
> Dave

many murderers - especially those who commit crimes of passion - never
reoffend.

Lance

On Jan 23, 1:25 am, "Steve Marshall" 
wrote:
> "Peter Brooks"  wrote
>
> > Mr Hitler, Mr Pol Pot, Mr Stalin, and Henry VIII all seemed quite keen
> > on not only proposing, but actually doing, just that - and they are
> > just three arbitrary examples, there are plenty more.
>
> Sorry, I didn't see their posts here.
>
When you said you didn't think that anybody had proposed something, I
took you to mean that, not that nobody on this thread had proposed
something.

On Jan 23, 2:50 am, Dave Smith  wrote:
> On 22 Jan, 23:24, "Steve Marshall"  wrote:
>
>
>
> > I am suggesting that repeat offenders that can't be rehabilitated should be
> > 'put down'.
>
> Presumably you mean murderers, not all recidivists.  Many murderers
> are first offenders, or have previously committed property offences
> rather than violent offences.  How would it be decided which murderers
> can't be rehabilitated?
>
One would hope so. I'm something of a recidivist myself when it comes
to minor traffic offenses. Mind you, Steve's programme would solve
quite a few world problems. Somebody who believed that the end
justified the means could suggest taking it up to resolve all our
population related problems. If recidivism were grounds for execution,
I don't even think my father would escape and he's, to my mind, a
paragon of rectitude.

Perhaps Steve isn't familiar with the parable about the mote and the
beam.

"Lance"  wrote

> many murderers - especially those who commit crimes of passion - never
> reoffend.


Then they wouldn't be executed. I'm suggesting eliminating those intent on 
repeatedly committing violent crimes against society. Not just murderers in 
particular, but other violent crimes.

Steve M

"Peter Brooks"  wrote

>One would hope so. I'm something of a recidivist myself when it comes
>to minor traffic offenses. Mind you, Steve's programme would solve
>quite a few world