Orf wiv their 'eads [2]

[davywavy]

My post on capital punishment the other day appears to have sparked a fair old debate, which is always gratifying. It's interesting to note that the pro/anti camp on the poll seems fairly evenly split, which surprised me considering that LJ tends to be the natural environment of the woolly lefty and led to me thinking that the atavistic human desire for revenge is quite strong across the population.
After consideration, my own opinion of the death penalty is that I'm against it; not because I consider people inherently worth saving or because I'm worried about ethical concerns of turning the state into a murderer, but simply because I reckon that giving the state the power of life and death over it's citizenry is a really bad idea which historically has gone badly wrong so often that it simply isn't worth the risk and the death penalty is just the thin end of the wedge. Let's face it - I wouldn't trust Tony and Gordon with my phone number* and so any suggestion that a legal structure giving a state with them in charge the authority to kill its people is just plain laughable.
I think that most people wouldn't argue that there are some people out there who just plain have it coming and if they were kiled by a falling piano tomorrow then the world would be a better place for it - whether or not we should go out and kill them, however, is another matter.

Last Sunday I found myself in the happy position of rowing a remarkably attractive young lady across a lake (this hasn't got much to do with my point, I just wanted to boast) and this topic of conversation came up. "Ah", she said. "What about euthanasia?"
Good point, thinks I, and the more I think about it, the better it gets, especially as the people who oppose the death penalty tend often (in my experience) to be pro-euthanasia, and vice versa.
By way of comparison: The death penalty is a system whereby highly trained (legal and medical)professionals are given the option of ending the lives of people who by any reasonable moral standard have really got it coming. Euthanasia is a system whereby highly trained (legal and medical) professionals are given the option of ending the lives of people who have, at worst, just been unlucky. The question is: is it legitimate for the state to allow the legal killing of people who've just been dealt a bum hand, but not to allow the legal killing of people who can reasonably be said to have it coming?

^{*Because they'd sell it to telemarketers to try and pull the Labour party out of the £14m black hole it finds itself in. Either that or John Prescott would make dirty phone calls to my sister.}

Comments

[elbly.livejournal.com]

I'm in favour of the dp anyway - so as far as I'm concerned euthanasia for criminal's is an option that I'm prepared to let them go with - some do it themselves anyway, it would just save us the hassle of having to try to revive them.

WRT your actual post: I do agree with your statements earlier about giving the power of life and death to government is a worry, and infact giving it to doctors is not great all the time either, but I think we'll find that as resources run low it won't be a matter of "should we/shouldn't we" but more a case of "can we actually afford to keep them alive?"

The issue of cost raised as a comment in your former post is a harsh one, but it's going to get to that point - why should I, the tax payer, pay for someone to be kept alive artificially/incaserated for the rest of their natural life when they are never going to be able to contribute to society again? When their situation may go on for 10's of years?

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

The population question is one which gets glossed over a lot but is an interesting one: if you plot a population curve from 1900 - 2100, it shows a population of 100,000,000,000 by 2100, which obviously isn't physically possible. As such, it's pretty clear that at some point within the next century something pretty dramatic is going to happen to curtail population growth.

[elbly.livejournal.com]

We currently rely heavily on oil for our food (which I'm sure you are well aware) not just for the distribution but for the fertilisers and pesticides which allow us to go so much so quickly...

... when the oil runs out, the food will run very very low unless we can develope some other means of support ourselves, thus the population will HAVE to decrease due to inavailability of food. My guess is that the number of people who live beyond 60 will drop drastically.

This, however, will not prevent us from having rapists and murderers who should still be strung up if they reoffend doggnamit! ;o)

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

People talk about the oil running out, but even the most conservative estimates suggest that there are in still excess of 1,000,000,000,000 barrels of oil easily accessible in the earth's crust. This, coupled with projects like thermal depolymerisation suggests that there will be oil for many oil-based projects in future.
Moving away from oil as a fuel is inevitable; most likely is Hydrogen fuel cells - General Motors and Exxon have a plan in place to have hydrogen fuelling stations in place around London by 2010 and to expand the network outwards relatively quickly after that.
Fortunately, you and I live in capitalist west and so are the ones least likely to bear the brunt of the inevitable global population crash.

[elbly.livejournal.com]

It's not just the food distribution but the fertilisers and pesticieds that are a worry.

But yes, you're right, the one's who will come off worse are likely to be the ones who currently come off worse.

[applez.livejournal.com]

Incidentally, you should really check out the piles of resources going into Sakhalin - stupefying quest for oil.

You should know that the shift from fossil fuels to Hydrogen Economy/fuel cells is something of a false promise at the moment - most of the hydrogen will have to come from fossil fuels - at least until we get smarter about electrolysis and alternate hydrogen fuel formations.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

The project I like the look of is the proposed plants to crack seawater into hydrogen and oxygen using geothermal power in iceland - I've a lot of hope about that one. I know too much about hydrogen fuel cells for my own good, having got burned on HFC stocks when they were briefly the hot technology about 5-6 years ago.

[applez.livejournal.com]

A good solution for Iceland, but a good solution for the world? Niche technology for a niche market, I'm afraid.

Incidentally - for all manner of geothermal solutions, one interesting experience hereabouts regarding artificial water injection into dried up old seams have been increased seismicity.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

The iceland thing isn't a global solution - but if the technology is proven to work, then it can (and I suspect will) rapidly become one as the energy companies are desperate for any solution which means they can stop dealing with The Middle East, Russia, Nigeria, and Huga Chavez.

[applez.livejournal.com]

Huga Chavez? I kindda like that. ;-)

Unfortunately I'm less optimistic because of the energy efficiency of it. It may work for Iceland because that have heaploads of unused energy potential boiling up from below. Moreover, that electrolysis needs serious improvement.

Personally, I wish it every bit of luck, because I would love nothing more than a future of offshore wind turbines and tidal systems safely and distantly generating hydrogen all day & night. Subsequent shipping or piping can bring it to market.

[(Anonymous)]

You've skipped over solar - a patch of the sahara about 300miles on a side sees enough radiant energy to supply all our energy requirements (right now anyway) with current 'state of the art' conversion efficiencies, and it's not like we're using it for much else.

Big problem with hydrogen is transportability. It's a small molecue which likes to leak, has a propensity to go bang, and pretty ropey energy density, so as a road fuel it is a bit second rate.

Basically, mobile apps, such as automobiles & motorcycles, are much more suited to the consumer with highly energy dense, easily handled, and reasonably safe if spilled liquid fuels (like diesel oil) as they will be safer, faster, and go further between fill-ups. Anything you can get a cable to (trains, houses, trolley busses, electric chairs) or big enough to carry proper electric plant (ships) will benefit from eco-electricity.

A rhetorical answer

[applez.livejournal.com]

why should I, the tax payer, pay for someone to be kept alive artificially/incaserated for the rest of their natural life when they are never going to be able to contribute to society again? When their situation may go on for 10's of years?

Because you can claim citizenship to a compassionate society. Or at least an enslaving (http://svtc.igc.org/cleancc/pubs/prisonfactsheet_305.pdf) one.

Re: A rhetorical answer

[elbly.livejournal.com]

I claim nothing - I just live here.

Anyway, since when was our society compassionate? I'd love to agree with you, really I would, but from what I see daily we're selfish, greedy ego-centric bastards on the whole and it if it's not affecting us, our family or kin then we couldn't give a shit. Yes there are people who are compassionate, but society as a whole is not.

Re: A rhetorical answer

[applez.livejournal.com]

But it's all about laying claim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassionate_conservative), not actually achieving unambigious 'good.'

Re: A rhetorical answer

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I claim nothing - I just live here
Does this mean you refute the social contract in it's entirety, or only the bits which don't suit you?

Re: A rhetorical answer

[elbly.livejournal.com]

Does this mean you refute the social contract in it's entirety, or only the bits which don't suit you?

I've not signed a social contract - I was lucky enough to be born here, and for that I'm grateful.

We all live in a society where currently we're allowed to speak our minds and, if we can unplug our brains from what the media spoon feeds us, judge for ourselves what works for us etc.

There are few people who are pius enough to claim that they follow this mythical "social contract" without refuting any part of it - however most people who say they do are probably lying. A Perfect example for me is the conversation I've just had: one of my colleagues just went on about how much she does for the environment then followed it up by saying that it was unacceptable for the government to even consider charging us £1000 road tax because she loves her car - she, I would guess, is in the majority.

[mrmmarc.livejournal.com]

"why should I, the tax payer, pay for someone to be kept alive artificially/incaserated for the rest of their natural life when they are never going to be able to contribute to society again? "

Because unless you are willing to kill them yourself, forever marking YOU as a murderer, then perhaps you shouldn't be asking that.

Why should you as a tax payer have the right to decide who lives or dies?
At what point does the ability to pay taxes (one which doesn't require ANY training I notice) grant you the right to decide such things?

I want to be part of a civilisatiuon better than me.
I am a normal person- meaning I have flaws and am weak and get fustrated and angry and would LOVE to see a whole bunch of people shot dead tomorrow.

I do not want to be part of a society that will INDULGE me in this.
I pay my taxes.
This gives me NO right to say how they are spent.
Luckily I live in a nice soft liberal democracy (*and a terribly whooly one at that). I can vote for people at election time and feel that someone is listening to my opnion.
Huzzah!
Of course no one actually IS listening... so I can express myself by typing posts to to LJ and blogs (rar!) and reading newspapers who sole aim is to PRETEND to give a shit about what I feel- so I buy copies to make 'em money! And those newspapers campaign on my behalf (or rather do whatever is required to sell more copies).

So anyway...

Feelin' somewhat cynical of late you may have noticed.
:)

[elbly.livejournal.com]

Because unless you are willing to kill them yourself, forever marking YOU as a murderer, then perhaps you shouldn't be asking that.

If I was shown solid proof that someone was a repeat offender (child rape, murder etc.) or never going to wake up, I'd throw the switch. So long as I was convinced that the method wouldn't cause them to feel any pain in the transition between here and gone - sure I'd do it.

I'm not a cold hearted cow who is only interested in where my taxes go, it's mearly another tick in a box for my reasons for being in favour of the death penalty and euthinasia.

I have watched 6 friends and relatives deteriorate due to cancer and tumours. All of whom, close to the end, would have been grateful to not have to wait, because that's all it is.. a waiting game. We're all here to die.

[(Anonymous)]

Absolute proofs only exist in mathematics. That's why juries are asked to convict on reasonable doubt. All 'real world' decisions require a degree of judgement, and a lot of people, when faced with that responsibility, will step away from it: myself included.

For this reason, the death penalty could result in guilty people being released as juries weren't sure enough of their guilt to send them to their deaths.

[elbly.livejournal.com]

Yes, it's true that the only two things in this world that are 100% deffinate are that we WERE born and we WILL die.

When I say solid proof I don't mean 100% water tight. A Brick is solid but it can still hold water (on average 16% of it's weight if it's a standard red-brick).

For this reason, the death penalty could result in guilty people being released as juries weren't sure enough of their guilt to send them to their deaths

This already happens because juries aren't sure enough of their guilt full stop. The death penalty would not make this end, nor commence.

Having the death penalty would never mean that we had no prisons - there are always going to be other crimes which do not warrent more than a year or so incarseration etc. so it would be perfectly reasonable for a sentence of 'life imprisonment' to be handed down if the jury/judge felt that the death penalty was not appropriate for what ever reason.

Please, by all means, disagree with the death penalty, it's your absolute right to do so, but do not think for one second it would increase or decrease the chance of guilty men walking free - the only thing that would do that is if the sentence had to be decided before the level of guilt - and that would be an arse-about-tit way of doing things.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

We're all here to die.

I'm not. I'm here to live. It's a healthier philosophy, I think, and perhaps it's where we differ in perspective.

Incarcerated, dammit!

[(Anonymous)]

I came to get down. You?

Re: Incarcerated, dammit!

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Get up, get down, get back up again.

Zar-Jazz.

Re: Incarcerated, dammit!

[(Anonymous)]

Scrotnig.

(nods wisely)

[elbly.livejournal.com]

perhaps it's where we differ in perspective

Perhaps it is - but my out look is this: I'm going to die one day, so I may as well live every day as though tomorrow is my last while taking enough care as to ensure that it won't be (e.g. not drinking and smoking myself into an early grave). Which I don't see is all that different to your view of "here to live".

Several years ago now I had an accident so bad that I'm amazed I'm still here, from that point on my view has been altered totally - before then I probably would have sided with you in your oppinion, but now, despite how prescious my life is to me, and my family and friends' lives, I have a greater appriciation of the fact that we are "here to go", that death is just another fact of life.

Having said that I greive over loss, of course I do, and I don't want my family or friends to die, but if it was what they wanted I would respect that.