Your mistake is thinking that the death penalty, and imprisonment in general, is about the criminal. It’s not. It’s about retribution on behalf of the victims.
I respect your opinion, but I don't agree with it. If we're going to have a death penalty, it needs to impersonal. The justice system has to work along strict guidelines, and it shouldn't really care what individuals want; it should be 'do X, have Y done to you.' The state killing people on behalf of the victims is, in my eyes, even more horrendous than the state killing people because they did something bad. I realize that to some extent this is semantics, as they'd still be being killed because they did something, but I think it's still an important distinction.
Do wrong, get stopped from doing it again. That's the important part, at least to me. Again, I don't want a vengeance system. Maybe some people do, and they're certainly allowed to feel that way, but I doubt I'll ever change my own opinion on the matter either. The law needs to be impartial and impersonal. To a large extent, I don't want it caring how anyone feels. That's part of the whole points of law as a concept.
The state, with its monopoly on violence, has a duty to mete out commensurate punishment against those who commit crimes against you.
But the system needs to work and - again, personal opinion - I don't think punishment even works as a concept. It might make a few victims feel better, but it also often doesn't. And I don't even think that should be the focus of law. And it certainly doesn't deter the most extreme type of criminal, who should be the only people affected by something like a death sentence.
The moment the state begins to seriously consider the well-being of the criminal instead of the satisfaction of the victimized citizen, the social contact is broken.
We're just coming at this from extremely different angles. Two wrongs don't make a right, I just want the violators kept from violating again. Also, I think the state does need to be required to take into account the "well-being" of the criminal, at least so far as basic rights go. We need to agree on certain things not being alright, and the core concept of banning cruel and unusual punishment is correct...even if its current form is often grossly misapplied. Once a criminal is caught, their agency is transferred to the state, and thus the state is responsible for them, and has a duty not to abuse them.
It's not about caring about the criminal, it's about basic humanity. Monsters shouldn't be mistreated, just like they shouldn't be tortured, mutilated, or what have you. They're still human, and you also have to take into account that occasionally - even if extremely rarely - innocent people will end up in the system. The system thus needs to be as humane as possible, even toward literal monsters. It's like the Man for All Seasons speech; it's not about protecting criminals, it's about protecting us.
The utility of the potentially reformed criminal - which is a questionable prospect in and of itself - is nothing compared to the deliverance of justice for the aggrieved.
I never once in any of my comments mentioned rehabilitation. In fact, I said repeatedly that the type of people I'm talking about essentially will never be rehabilitated. I'm also suspicious of talk of "utility." Utility devalues life, and I think we do need to value life itself, to protect us all. That said, if someone can be rehabilitated, I think that's great, but in most cases it is not feasible, and shouldn't be the goal.
If you want to see a real loss of human capital and utility, start emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment.
Again, never said anything about rehabilitation. I even said many of these perpetrators should be locked up for life. Also, again, I distrust things like "human capital and utility." I want rehabilitation on the table, but it's going to be exceedingly rare with the type we're talking about. But I also don't want punishment to be the focus. I just want them to be kept from offending again.
I’ll finish with a thought experiment. Imagine a system so advanced that it can perfectly rehabilitate a murderer in a single day. Would you be happy to see a murderer freed after one day?
Well, it's tricky to imagine, because it's so divorced from reality. I get your point, but also if you can "rehabilitate" someone like that, they'd essentially be a completely different person. Also, in a society that advanced, I imagine you wouldn't have the criminal mindset, to such a degree. People would have been "rehabilitated" long before they committed murder.
But, again, I get your point and, to answer your question at its most basic: No, I likely wouldn't be satisfied. But to expand further, does that matter? Imagine that same society, and you have someone who has been fixed, and will never murder again. Should society then kill that person, even though he's no danger, to try make someone else happy? It's fucked up either way you slice it. And, again, I don't think death is the answer. If you do rehabilitate a murder in a day, perhaps keep them in prison doing labor for a couple years or something. But again, there's still some issues.
What if he had murdered the person you love most in the world. You know the killer will never harm another person, but your loved one is gone forever. Are you satisfied with his rehabilitation and immediate release?
Of course not, my loved one is dead. But I also don't think I'd feel any better if the state killed him. The wrongdoing has already occurred, and can't be fixed. If they could magically fix criminals, I think that's still a better outcome, even if the victim isn't happy.
So how does society function when everyone gets at least one free pass for murder?
Again, that's very hypothetical, and not what I'm arguing for anyway. And, again, in such a scenario, the criminal mindset would have been stamped out the first time someone does some graffiti, or breaks a window, or whatever.
If the state abdicates its most basic duty, to commit justified violence on behalf of its law abiding citizens...
Again, we're just coming at this from very different angles. I don't agree with your assessment, and I don't think violence against incarcerated people - no matter how monstrous - is justified violence.
I respect your opinion, but I don't agree with it. If we're going to have a death penalty, it needs to impersonal. The justice system has to work along strict guidelines, and it shouldn't really care what individuals want; it should be 'do X, have Y done to you.' The state killing people on behalf of the victims is, in my eyes, even more horrendous than the state killing people because they did something bad. I realize that to some extent this is semantics, as they'd still be being killed because they did something, but I think it's still an important distinction.
Do wrong, get stopped from doing it again. That's the important part, at least to me. Again, I don't want a vengeance system. Maybe some people do, and they're certainly allowed to feel that way, but I doubt I'll ever change my own opinion on the matter either. The law needs to be impartial and impersonal. To a large extent, I don't want it caring how anyone feels. That's part of the whole points of law as a concept.
But the system needs to work and - again, personal opinion - I don't think punishment even works as a concept. It might make a few victims feel better, but it also often doesn't. And I don't even think that should be the focus of law. And it certainly doesn't deter the most extreme type of criminal, who should be the only people affected by something like a death sentence.
We're just coming at this from extremely different angles. Two wrongs don't make a right, I just want the violators kept from violating again. Also, I think the state does need to be required to take into account the "well-being" of the criminal, at least so far as basic rights go. We need to agree on certain things not being alright, and the core concept of banning cruel and unusual punishment is correct...even if its current form is often grossly misapplied. Once a criminal is caught, their agency is transferred to the state, and thus the state is responsible for them, and has a duty not to abuse them.
It's not about caring about the criminal, it's about basic humanity. Monsters shouldn't be mistreated, just like they shouldn't be tortured, mutilated, or what have you. They're still human, and you also have to take into account that occasionally - even if extremely rarely - innocent people will end up in the system. The system thus needs to be as humane as possible, even toward literal monsters. It's like the Man for All Seasons speech; it's not about protecting criminals, it's about protecting us.
I never once in any of my comments mentioned rehabilitation. In fact, I said repeatedly that the type of people I'm talking about essentially will never be rehabilitated. I'm also suspicious of talk of "utility." Utility devalues life, and I think we do need to value life itself, to protect us all. That said, if someone can be rehabilitated, I think that's great, but in most cases it is not feasible, and shouldn't be the goal.
Again, never said anything about rehabilitation. I even said many of these perpetrators should be locked up for life. Also, again, I distrust things like "human capital and utility." I want rehabilitation on the table, but it's going to be exceedingly rare with the type we're talking about. But I also don't want punishment to be the focus. I just want them to be kept from offending again.
Well, it's tricky to imagine, because it's so divorced from reality. I get your point, but also if you can "rehabilitate" someone like that, they'd essentially be a completely different person. Also, in a society that advanced, I imagine you wouldn't have the criminal mindset, to such a degree. People would have been "rehabilitated" long before they committed murder.
But, again, I get your point and, to answer your question at its most basic: No, I likely wouldn't be satisfied. But to expand further, does that matter? Imagine that same society, and you have someone who has been fixed, and will never murder again. Should society then kill that person, even though he's no danger, to try make someone else happy? It's fucked up either way you slice it. And, again, I don't think death is the answer. If you do rehabilitate a murder in a day, perhaps keep them in prison doing labor for a couple years or something. But again, there's still some issues.
Of course not, my loved one is dead. But I also don't think I'd feel any better if the state killed him. The wrongdoing has already occurred, and can't be fixed. If they could magically fix criminals, I think that's still a better outcome, even if the victim isn't happy.
Again, that's very hypothetical, and not what I'm arguing for anyway. And, again, in such a scenario, the criminal mindset would have been stamped out the first time someone does some graffiti, or breaks a window, or whatever.
Again, we're just coming at this from very different angles. I don't agree with your assessment, and I don't think violence against incarcerated people - no matter how monstrous - is justified violence.