Law, morals and philosophy?

Thirdfox

As a law student we are taught that law is not primarily about "justice" in the common sense of the word but rather who is "right" in a legal sense. (Although the court has on occasions thrown out the book of logic in favour of public opinion: see the AG v. X abortion case, the Curtain case, or Re Ward of Court cases, where the "right" decision was reached but at the cost of ignoring reason - of course judges are but human and are subject to the same moral compass that affects everyone daily.)

We have academics who are opposed to any kind of introduction of morality into the legal system and others who say we should be judged solely via morals/ethics etc.

The recent furore over the statutory rape case has made me wonder, should we have mob rule? Democracy in the judiciary (elected judges)? Personally I would be against such a move but I would be interested in seeing how people who philosophise think of the matter.

Morals and law? Partners or adversaries?

Pocari Sweat

Ok, kick off with the death penalty debate.

Although the death penalty is used in many states in america, it is mainly used today in less socially developed societies and previously when many countries had antiquated laws, with a similar lack of equality legislation.

Law systems of modern countries have since evolved and moderate social and political landscapes are becoming the norm.

When it was last used in Ireland and the UK, there were too many cases that were later reviewed and found the defendents innocent. Defendents could not then be released from prison alive and pardoned, it was too late.

The Guilford Four and the Birmingham Six may have all found themselves on the end of a rope because of the political climate, corruption in the UK police force, violence used in interogations to secure confessions and poor forensics of the day.

The death penalty was also widely seen as a crime not to just individuals but also society, in that it debased and dehumanised society, and took nothing into account where the rehabilitation of individuals was concerned.

Arguments for the death sentence, are often blurred by revenge and anger against particularly henious crimes, assuming 100% certainty is always going to be possible from initial conviction to the final verdict of a jury.

Money is also brought into the debate, where keeping prisoners for long sentences at the cost of the state is concerned.

The type of death sentences are also debated, where many available in the past although inhumane such as hanging, electric chair and lethal injection were dismissed as being cruel because of a disregard of death row inmates in the crimes they have committed and the ultimate finality in killing those accused of crimes.

Other things such as the deterent factor are usually discussed. Regardless of the millions of deaths in human history where the death sentence was used, it can be said that not a single soul who faced a death sentence was detered from committing their crimes that a death penalty was in place to prevent.

Finally the view of a mixed bag is often debated, where predicting a high success rate in getting many criminals, means that it is regrettable but necessary that some innocent people also have to be killed, for a hope of crime reduction.

Historically, violent crime in modern times has increased, so a wider scope of death sentencing would then need to be used including lesser important crimes in order to reduce crime.

Can certain instances be used for the death sentence to be re-introduced?

Laplandman

A very contentious issue if one is to judge at least by the earnestness of the debate in the public domain - and by earnestness I mean an unswerving devotion to completely falsifying all available facts in the pursuit of one lobbys own particular end. However from the point of view of simple persuasiveness, retentionist arguments do seem to be some of the most hate fuelled and muddy tirades I have ever encountered.

originally posted by Pocari Sweat:

Although the death penalty is used in many states in america, it is mainly used today in less socially developed societies and previously when many countries had antiquated laws, with a similar lack of equality legislation.

Can certain instances be used for the death sentence to be re-introduced?

As regards movements towards institution, retention or abolition and their social motivation, I don't know if social underdevelopment quite cuts it.

Is it not possible that a new sympathy for capital punishment could erupt at any time, even in rich western countries, where we might for example see a penal system amputate its rehabilitationist monkey and turn to utterly populist and punitive tactics, stamping, stamping - forever?

Of course such a state-of-affairs is purely hypothetical, but maybe someone can clarify why it might not come to be?