Justice vs. Vengeance and the Death Penalty

[hint0122]

for some, there will never be a chance of redemption since they honestly don't care.

[ultradumbass]

@Joolazoo there is no "intellectual freedom" in prison, that's the whole idea. the idea of life without parole is death by old age. an inmate on death row has several years to become "redemptive" before they die therefore the argument makes no sense. you'll notice states with the death penalty release lifers faster, michigan hasn't had the death penalty since 1846 yet every murder automatically means life till death. in canada before 1964 with the dp a life sentence meant 7 years now it is 25.

[ultradumbass]

@Joolazoo you can't expect life without parole to be a better method that is even more cruel than the death penalty. the overwhelming majority of people who are against the death penalty also want the prisoner to still be in prison for the rest of their life. so explain how exactly this fairs any better. the only reason it seems people oppose the death penalty is they are afraid of executing the innocent even though they'll be putting innocent people away for the next 60 years until they die.

[guatepower]

lol at 3:05

[treismac]

@Joolazoo

The morality of "an eye for an eye" rises not only from its administering of justice, but also from it acting as a restraining force against vengeance. If a person loses one of his eyes to another's act of violence, it is unlikely that the man who lost his eye would be content with only taking out one of his assailant's eyes in kind. More than likely the man who lost his eye would want to completely blind his attacker or do even far worse to him or his family.

[amolapaz1]

I cringe at the thought of the DP, not due to any sympathic sentiment towards murderers but rather at the realization of basic human imperfections. I believe that what you give in life is what you should receive so if you give death you should receive death, however, the possibility for errors are ever-present. The thought of an innocent person having their lives taken in my name is not a comforting thought. Therefore I am totally against the DP.

[Benj71]

Cenk should think through his views on the DP. There is no deterrent element, and its not possible to make the DP more "certain" given that you need appeals etc as you are dealing with taking someone's life. There are a whole host of other reasons to be against the DP too, including the decent Catholic one (although I am not a Catholic) that killing people is WRONG, and killing people for killing people does not make it right.

[SilverAnxo]

The American vs Eurozone "justice" systems prove that conventional deterrence literally doesn't work. Real murderers, rapist, paedophiles really aren't interested in whether or not they go to jail. They have mental issues and need to be rehabilitated. The re-offending rates compared to the USA (Longer sentences, harsher prison conditions) compared to euro-zone prisons (rehabilitate, shorter sentencing, alternative sentencing) are literally out standing in favour of the euro-zone.

[felixbrignoni]

I'm torn when it comes to the death penalty am 50% against it but 50% for it. There are some cases when a judge finds the defendant guilty and then they find out later that the defendant didn't commit the crime but by then is to late he or she is already dead by the state.

[joshatkins94]

retribution is a part of justice, not vengeance. and it isn't a spectrum of deterrence, it just doesn't deter right now. the states with the death penalty have on average twice the murder rates of those that don't. some of the criminals in death penalty states are so stupid they don't even realize there is a death penalty. alternatively, you could go down the singapore route and kill most violent criminals, but I don't think that's a country you'd want to live in.

[LtKharn]

Morals: a study of human behavior as a consequence of beliefs about what is right or wrong, or good or bad, insofar as that behavior is useful or effective.

Ethics: the study of moral problems which seeks to discover how one ought to act.

Justice should be based on ethics, it should be unemotional.

[98bigbutt]

The difference between the 2 is that Justice is when you want a person to be punished for their crimes. But vengeance on the other hand is when you want this person to suffer for their crimes.

[00maharum00ma]

Vengeance is an animalistic desire we have to retaliate against attacks. Justice is a moral desire we have to fulfill righteous values.

Allowing the state to murder someone who has been detained and is no immediate threat to any defenseless people is vengeful, but it isn't just.

Without that understanding, we don't live in civilization. We live in barbarism.

[jlopez9090]

There is no vengeance in justice. justice is about fairness, not emotional backlash. Cenk keeps using the argument about relatives being murdered, but that is an emotional response, not a logical one. That is why judges are trained to be as unbiased as possible, otherwise emotionality would mar their judgments. Just look at Norway's justice system compared to the amount of crimes committed

[ufo5147]

a great discussion.. discussed competently on both sides

[tookthenight]

More Cenk and Jonathan!!!

[rini6]

There is vengeance in our justice system. Does this instinct still benefit modern society?? I think not. To me, jail is good for one thing... protecting us from violent criminals. Non violent offenders can be dealt with in other ways.

[BUCEnGAR]

I agree with Cenk on this.

There IS a vengeance factor when people are punished for the crimes they commit against others. We typically perceive this as a sense of fairness, as in, it would be unfair if the person committing the crime goes unpunished, and when they are we feel gratified that justice was done.

[BrotherAlpha]

One last point, you can deter more crimes by increasing the likelihood of capture than by increasing the penalty IF you get caught.

[BrotherAlpha]

The justice system should also take into account rehabilitation and prevention. Without that, the justice system will never be complete.

[BrotherAlpha]

I think the death penalty is acceptable, but only in extreme cases. Jeffery Dalmer killed an ate people. Clearly he has something mentally wrong with him. The options were to put in him general population, where he was killed. Put him in a mental home, where he might be a danger to others. Or put him in solitary confinement for life, which can be seen as cruel. In this case, execution seems the best solution. Call it the Old Yeller solution.

But make sure you are 100% sure he is guilty.

[CognosSquare]

@Joolazoo Its good you can find the fun in this. Im just saying that McVeigh is one mass murderer we should have kept.

He could be writing hateful nazist novels and having children with multiple crazy women from within prison like Charles Manson. Im sure that is what the philosophers all wanted.

[CognosSquare]

@Joolazoo yes I miss Timothy McVeigh also :(

[shraka]

Cenk throws in the real deterrence here: You have to raise the chance of being caught. Severity is coming up in a verity of studies as FAR less important than making potential criminals fairly certain they will get caught.

[AndroidPhantom]

a lot of people, it turns out, didn't do what they are accused of doing. i think that's a pretty efficient "case closed" argument

[bananihana]

two epic minds combine

[TsugaruClan]

Great discussion, great look at this complex issue.