Grim Beaker, this is where you and I part. You are using what your hypothetical torturer does as the reason for what society should do to him (beyond, preventing him from ever hurting anyone again, which would be served by incarceration.)
I say, regardless of what any person does regardless of how heinous, does not change my refusal to kill anyone. And since I am part of this society, if I don’t protest, vote, etc, in accordance with my position that I don’t choose to harm anyone one bit further that I feel is absolutely necessary, then I am participating in his execution.
It isn’t about what anyone did, it’s about what I will and won’t do.
Ugh… why are so many people keen on justice anyway? What exactly is the point - it always makes me sad that people tend towards revenge rather than mercy.
I realize that which is why, IMHO, use of the death penalty should be severely curtailed until such a time as the U.S. system provides for such a category or it’s equivalent within the system. Once the stringent “ridiculously obvious” requirements (whatever those requirements may be) are fulfilled I have no ethical qualms in executing the guilty.
Jeu_D’esprit
All things must be weighed and prioritized relative to each other. If global culture changes to such an extent that America could face severe economic sanctions unless it complies with the popular moral code of other industrial nations then it may then very well be the practical thing to do regardless of what the popular stance is in the states. However such heavy handed tactics don’t seem likely for the foreseeable future nor is such a hypothetical really a consideration for me at all at this point.
snermy
Incarceration doesn’t necessarily prevent him from harming others nor does it prevent harm to him.
Personal morals do not always scale well into governmental policy. I’m not necessarily stating that this is one of those cases. What I am saying is that what moral philosophy one holds to for personal decisions isn’t always the correct one in regards to applications across broad classes of people in diverse locations & subcultures.
IMHO the murderer has already committed the ultimate act. He has deprived those murdered from all choices. All pleasures enjoyed, friendships garnered, children raised, vacations taken, good books read, etc. Everything. These people have no existence now. It’s been taken from them. We can’t return them to life and neither can the murderer. To allow the “ridiculously guilty” murderer to live is to acknowledge that his being currently alive is more important than the fact that he extinguished lives. That is a moral valuation that simply is not valid to me.
Agreed. The prison system is not perfect. And harming other inmates is certainly a risk in our current prison system. But both those statements support prison reform more than the death penalty (after all, you aren’t proposing the death penalty for the forger, drug dealer, or thief just because they might harm/be harmed in prison. Prison is just as dangerous for the non-murderers there, if we’re going to be concerned about that.) Seems a bit pointless to argue for the death penalty to prevent harm to the individual being executed. Statistically, I’d guess prison is still less likely to kill you if you aren’t given a lethal injection.
Agreed. But I’m not talking about every personal moral philosophy I might hold. Specifically, why would “not killing people who can be prevented from harming individuals or society in other ways” be incorrect for society? Is it too expensive? Will it not satisfy the families of the victims?
I think that second point is the major one. I think many people feel that justice is not being served if the killer is still alive, and the worse the crime, the more strongly they feel that way. And each of those individuals is supporting their personal moral philosophy when they support the death penalty. I’m just putting in my voice as part of the loyal and currently outnumbered opposition, but we’re all part of society’s current application to the problem.
Which position you stated quite well in point:
Killing someone is the ultimate act whether it’s done by the individual or by committee
Again “his being currently alive” is not my reason for opposing killling him. I would shed no tears if he were killed in the course of his crimes, dropped dead of a heart attack, choked on a peanut.
But once he is at our mercy, “ridiculously guilty” or not, whether or not we chose to be a killer too shows whether or not we as a society are holding ourselves to higher standards than our least moral, most deviant members, even when dealing with those horrible individuals. Or is it okay for me to just buy a gun and go kill the man who I’m 99% sure killed my friend? What if I’m wrong? Am I less wrong because my friend is dead and will never enjoy life again? Am I less wrong if my friend died horribly? (Or what if I’m right? My friend is still dead and I just killed someone in cold blood. Maybe I won’t kill anyone again, but hey, who’s to say I won’t? Better kill me, just to make sure…)
I know you didn’t say anything that extreme, I’m not trying to put words in your mouth. The above examples are my questions when I think about the topic, suggested to me by your responses, but not to imply that’s what you were saying.
But discussing moral valuations, that’s what I’m operating under, that killing someone does harm to me even as it does more harm to them. I guess each of us has to decide when that harm is necessary.
Also Rodney Reed, very probably. Although he has not been executed yet, he is on death row, with little chance for appeal. Check out the recent Austin Chronicle archives for more info.
He also was imprisoned on the testimony of the likely actual murderer, a police officer in the town (bastrop, tX) in question.
Since several people have already asked this, I don’t feel too ignorant - Why does this only apply to america? If you are referring to the concept of justice being blind, well that concept is far older than the USA - the Old Bailey in London has the same statue on the roof, and I’m sure the concept is even older.
Why does this only apply to america?
Well, it doesn’t. But America prides itself on founding concepts of equality and justice for all, looking down on and punishing countries because of their Human Rights abuses, yet continues to be one of only six countries that execute children (the others are Yemen, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia).
The death penalty is hit and miss. There is absolutely no guarantee that two juries will come up with the same verdict regarding exactly the same case.
Allowing a guilty person to die is setting them free from responsibility of their crimes in a way, depending on how you look at it. Life in prison may not be much of a punishment given the amenities offered by the institutions they are housed in. Besides, there are plenty of law-abiding citizens who do not get three meals a day, shelter, medical care, cable TV, work-out facilities, employment, a bed and a roof over their heads, even if it’s not first class
Sure. I only mentioned #1 not because I was concerned for the murderers safety but rather for the safety of his fellow inmates. The same drug dealers, petty thieves and the like who are now being exposed to a dangerous element. I’m not going to be particularly concerned if a murderer who I believe should have been executed is harmed while in prison but that certainly doesn’t justify IMHO additional harm inflicted on those we’re attempting to rehabilitate.
To me it’s a moral issue. It doesn’t matter whether the families want the perpetrator to be executed or what the cost of incarceration is. IMHO the persons life is forfeit. I realize that this isn’t always practical and that one needs to work with the system as it currently exists (the current system, flawed as it is, needs to severely restrict the use of the death penalty). However, in an ideal situation, IMHO the person who cold bloodedly murders deserves death and I have no qualms about society being the instrument which performs the execution.
My support for the death penalty is largely based on a moral stance. You commit the ultimate violence in cold blooded pre-meditated fashion and deprive someone of all choices, ergo all choices must be deprived from you. Anything else isn’t just. But from a practical standpoint, disregarding the money issues associated with execution and incarceration, how is society benefited by keeping cold blooded killers alive? How does not executing these people benefit society?
kevlaw
I believe I’ve already explained my stance on why some people deserve execution and it doesn’t have anything to do with feeling good about it.
Leaving aside the fact that you did originally mention harm to the prisoner as well as other prisoners, you seem to be under the impression that petty theives would be incarcerated alongside murderers serving life. ‘Life without parole’ generally has a separate wing, does it not?
[quoteBut from a practical standpoint, disregarding the money issues associated with execution and incarceration, how is society benefited by keeping cold blooded killers alive? How does not executing these people benefit society?[/quote]
It protects citizens from wrongful conviction and execution. There are probably other benefits too, but for me, this is enough.
As has been pointed out before there is an inherent problem here in as much as that this proposed perfect system doesn’t exist. What would then a severe restriction on the death penalty look like? What crimes and what burden of proof would be required?
I hear the argument over and over again, but I never see any plausible or credible proposition towards a practical way out of imperfection. Fool proof justice is hard, maybe even impossible.
Why can’t we have a different standard for the death penalty? A person can currently be convicted even if the jurors have doubts, they just can’t be “reasonable doubts”. Wouldn’t a “beyond any doubt” standard be sufficient to impose the death penalty in the case of capital murder?
What about my hypothetical case. We know the convicted is guilty. Ridiculously guilty as Sua put it. How are we benefited by keeping him alive?
I’ve already agreed that the current system is flawed. A severe restriction at this point would basically be all people on death row until the system has a higher level of accuracy. Note that this doesn’t mean that I’m opposed to executing the guilty. I agree with anti DP people that the system is too unreliable and that innocents may be executed and that therefore we shouldn’t be continuing executions. However, the vast majority of anti DP people that I’ve spoken with hold that position because they feel it’s wrong for the state to execute even if the system could perfectly determine guilt.
I’m not entirely certain what a more perfect system would entail. I imagine that some very hard evidence would be required. Video tape, corroborated by eyewitness testimony, combined with confession.