Hi Ross
Now, now, I asked first - LOL.
Surely the difference is only a few thousand years of evolution?
Yes, and, so, what?
Look, until you can show you are as concerned about the intestinal symbionts you digest by the millions each day, wear plastic sandals and eat a fruitarian diet, I'm not going to try and prove that different life forms have different qualities of life as your actions already prove it.
At no point have I suggested that BIOLOGICAL life is a criteria for automatic preservation; that's from you. I
state that sophoncy is the criteria, and that you are free to rebutt; but you're not rebutting it, as your comments don't show sophoncy to NOT be a valid criteria but simply suggest other irrelevent criteria like stage of evolution.
Crocodiles are at a high level of evolution. They've not changed in millions of years as they fit their environment so well there is no (well, near zero) selection pressure for change. Doesn't mean they've equal rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of wildebeasts as humans.
So do I but on what basis do YOU claim that duty?
I claim that duty because I can and want to.
We are the only creatures capable of conceptualising 'environmental custodianship'. We are also the creature most equippied to destroy environments and of. Rational egoism alone dictates an interest in the environment is wise.
Like caged for 23 hours a day?
Ah, a generalisation. All those poor ants in London Zoo's insect house, imprisoned and suffering. Oh, hang on, they're not suffering. You are being anthropomorphic again and putting a human value (in a cage is not nice) on ALL animals, when a lot don't 'know' or 'care' they are in captivity.
Those that do 'know' or 'care 'are free of predators, feed well, and given medical help. If they are in a suitable social grouping there are very few 'red flags' that would cause them distress. The smarter or more reclusive the species the more likely suffering will result in captivity.
But even then, would a chimp who could write send a letter to Amnesty International? I think it would be quite happy as all its needs are filled, except one you are attributiing to it because you can conceive it.
A dolphin on the other hand; I've not and would not go and see dolphins in captivity. No way they can have all their needs filled in captivity, and they are certainly smart enough to suffer as a result - they're one of the only animals to have committed suicide in captivity.
Neither can the one's allowed to "live" to death...
On the contrary, only those who could not be safely released would be in prison until they died. And as the focus would be on rehabilitation, this would be the intractable ones, a minority. And they would have their right to leave the prison in a box if they yearned for the old days.
As for the what extra risk makes judicial killings justifiable; in our current society I believe we have the luxery of showing killing is wrong by not sanctioning legal killing unless it avoids immediate threat to life. The additonal risk (remember, you'd have to live over 4 million years to have a 1/1000 chance of being killed by a released murderer) is negligble, which is why we have that luxery.
It's all very well to ask questions like 'what additonal risk is acceptable', but it isn't relevent as the risk is so far away from anything that would ressemble unacceptable risk, to quantify what would be unacceptable would still set the yard stick several powers of ten away.
It's just avoiding accepting there is no real risk in releasing murders subject to due process and responsibility by making a slippery slop or adverse concequences fallacy.
So are you telling me that the appreciably high cost of the Dutch penal system hasn't improved the percentile risk of NOT killing killers?
No, I'm saying the figures are lousy, but that as a postive association would be a very noticable trend (lots of released muderers being done for a second murder), the lousyness of the figures indicates there's no increased risk, as an increased risk would invaribaly be noticed and trigger the research to quantify it.
And yet both murders and executions (see "Green Mile" with Tom Hanks) are televised in entertainment.
Yup, so, if they make films of sport-stars lives AND you can see them perform live, why not murderers? If killing isn't wrong why don't we make money out of it?
Are you for giving a felon the opportunity to choose euthanasia over continued imprisonment at sentencing and parole boards and anytime inbetween?
I'm not giving the prisoner anything. Anyone already always has the opportunity to choose death. I'm just advocating a method which would avoid ghastly painful suicides, and maybe get those thinking of the idea to speak to profesionals (thus the mention of ethics screening) rather than enter the pattern of unsuccesful half-hearted suicide attempts that procede many succesful ones. This would identify those who might be depressed etc. early on as part of the ethical screening process and be able to help their depression and hopefully remove the desire to end their life.
I wonder how the proportion of "State - murdered" innocents" v's "released known fellon - murdered" innocents, compares...
You've not responded to my point regarding it being better for a mistake to be made than for knowing state-sanction of an unavoidably unjust method of execution.
Without responding to this it makes quantitive arguments (such as you enter) seem relevent even when it has already been shown the quantitive difference in risk is near 0. I would appreciate your thoughts on the moral dilema (or qualitative argument) I put forward.
It seems like America has plenty of checks and balances. How many innocents do they "murder"?
Hey, I've addressed this issue. You stoned too? ;-)
If they have "plenty of checks and balances", how can incompetent representation and new evidence be ignored so often and determinatedly in retrials and appeals for retrials and stays of execution? How can the retarded and those who committed crimes as minors still be killed? Anyone who's examined the system in any detail knows that someone on Death Row is more likely to be killed or refused appeals in the run up to state elections than at any other time.
Come on Ross, you're ignoring or forgetting things already covered too often as well as making sweeping statements so far removed from reality as to do your argument no good what-so-ever. Checks and balances my hairy arse.
Is defending the indefensable really that hard? Oh, yeah.. I suppose it would be... but you've done better than anyone else.
;-)
Now I am off for a bit of cruel and unusual punishment; the dentist. Although I might respond to Realist first...