Theory and Practice; or, M.A. steps out of her shallow intellectual depth

[goes_disco]

I should preface this entry by saying that I'm hopelessly ignorant on this subject; the research I have done was shallow, and several years ago. This begs the question why am I writing this at all? (a) I'm uppity; and (b) I'm procrastinating. Mostly (b).


This NY Times article describes a recent case which basically reaffirmed the unconstitutionality

Comments

[edjoesu]

in the spirit of procrastination, a summary:

When faced with a guy
By default we don't kill him
So why should we here?

Choose reasons among:
Rehab, incapacitate
Retribute, deter.

Can't rehab the dead.
Can't do crimes if jailed for life.
Must be (3) or (4).

Retribution, then?
To me the idea makes no sense.
Others think it does.

If one accepts it,
Would need a reason not to kill.
Sanctity of life?

Lastly, deterrence.
Death penalty, less murders?
Empirical claim.

Most studies biased.
I can't find a good study
Showing an effect.

Even granting one,
We wouldn't kill innocents
So as to deter.

In my mind that is
How the dialectic goes.
I come out against.

[mikevonkorff]

:)

Although I'm socially liberal in most every respect, I find myself having trouble with justifications at times. What makes abortion, murder, war, assisted suicide, and execution different? What makes them different from inaction that leads to the death of a stranger? I can pick out a few differences that I strongly believe are meaningful, but for others, I wonder...

I have nothing else to contribute to this discussion at the moment other than my thanks to the two of you for having it and thereby causing the above... haiku... to exist.

[edjoesu]

I think war is hard; inaction towards strangers is really hard too.