Am I the only one bemused that someone who choose Curtis LeMay as thier username would argue the absolute morality of saying innocent people shouldn’t be killed? Curtis “Bombs Away” LeMay who commanded the area firebombing of Japanese cities that killed half a million civilians? Curtis “Bomb them to the Stone Age” LeMay who advocated using nuclear weapons in Vietnam?
I don’t mean offense, but I always roll my eyes when someone calls it “murder.” Murder by definition is willful killing that’s not state-sanctioned. You can be fervently against the death penalty, but calling it “murder” is incorrect. If the state sanctions it, “killing” it is but not “murder” per se.
But it is premeditated homicide. I do not consent to the state committing premeditated homicide in my name.
I am pro-death penalty. Presumably, the anti-death penalty crowd wants to change my view. But using incorrect terms like “murder” is simply hysterics, and if you’re going to resort to that, I’m just going to shut down and not listen to anything you say. Reasoned arguments only, please; no hysterics.
Clearly you don’t want to debate the issue, or you wouldn’t conflate the incorrect use of a term with hysteria.
I think you’re using the term “murder” to provoke an emotional response, there. I don’t think it’s just an innocent incorrect use of the term.
I’m not using the term murder. But it is premeditated homicide.
true, it is premeditated homicide, with the difference that it is legally mandated. It is coolly, calculated and for a very specific reason. It is not randomly done for fun or profit, or because invisible voices in ones head said to do it. It is the tradeoff for the culprit having performed a crime as legally defined at law, with a specific punishment being mandated. A panel of common people are convinced by evidence that this person has performed this crime, so it is not a decision made lightly. It is a social contract. Society has deemed that death is the punishment for that particular crime, and carries it out.
I don’t agree with all of the social conventions approved by Society. Do you?
Arbitrarily accusing me of something. Wow, that’s really going to make me change my view.
Nothing arbitrary about it. Never attribute to hysteria that which can be explained by ignorance.
As for changing your view, I’m not holding my breath anyway
Not all killing is murder. Is killing an enemy soldier during war a murder? Is killing in self-defense murder? Similarly a person who is executed in response for him commiting murder is a just punishment by a civilized society not murder. Also it is blatant hypocraisy to say abortion is all right but executing people who are murderers (I don’t mean falsely convicted innocent people which is the only thing that makes me have doubts about the death penalty).
Obviously I don’t agree with everything the real Curtis LeMay did.
Actually, I don’t agree it’s blatant hypocrisy. I’ve always been pro-abortion – or “pro-choice” for the politically correct, which is really just pro-abortion – but I used to be morally opposed to the death penalty, and I saw no contradiction in that. I still don’t. Like you, any reservations I retain about the death penalty are based on the possibility of executing an innocent man. There is no redress to grievance once he’s dead. I would reserve it for extreme cases, like Charles Manson or John Wayne Gacey (and maybe Michael Jackson :D). But over time, the feeling that it’s immoral has simply disappeared. Maybe it comes from living in the Third World for so long; maybe I just got tired of wasting apparent sympathy on some real lowlifes.
There’s also the flip side of the coin: people who are rabidly opposed to abortion but equally supportive of the death penalty.
How do you feel about military operations? Those could similarily be classified as premeditated homicide. We are going to Iraq, there are going to be those do not want us to be there, and we plan on killing them.
Do we know their names? Are they detained in a cell? Will we kill them even if they lay down their arms and stop committing acts of violence against us and Iraqi civilians? Our purpose in war is not to kill the enemy; it is to secure territory and prevent violence. If those goals can be achieved without killing the enemy, it is the duty of our forces to avoid confrontation whenever possible. The degree of force inflicted by our forces is propotional to the resistance by insurgents.
Such restraint is not the goal of a justice system that believes capital punishment is an appropriate punishment.
There is nothing a convict on death row can do to prevent the state from exercising the ultimate penalty. The choice to commit premeditated homicide lies entirely with the state.
Except for not commit the crime that put him on death row in the first place. It’s not like the death penalty is sprung on someone unsuspecting. There are certain crimes that are punishable by death, and before somebody commits a crime, I’d think he should, if for no reason than his best interest, know what the penalty is if he’s convicted of the crime, and decide if he’s willing to risk that.
Which is exactly why the death penalty is different from casualties of war. If combatants are captured, they cannot be executed for using deadly force in the heat of combat. Even if they are guilty of homicide, they can lay down their arms and surrender, and then they must be treated as prisoners of war. I have never heard of a murder suspect who avoided a death sentence merely because he gave himself up.
Fat Tony: What’s a “murder” ?
But it’s also why crime is different than war. A soldier who’s taken up arms and is an honorable combatant hasn’t done anything shameful or worthy of punishment. In combat, the soldier is the tool in the general’s hand. He’s killed, not because he deserves death, but because killing him is a way to stop the enemy side from winning. But accepting his surrender is equally a way to stop the enemy side.
Does that go for the Taliban as well?