OK I’m going to buck the trend here, and say that I generally consider myself opposed to the death penalty, but wouldn’t object to this being an exception. It basically comes down to the fact that while I have no objection to the death penalty in principal, I am opposed to it in practice, in just about every case.
I believe that the government has the moral right to take take a life if necessary, and even without the death penalty it does so on a regular basis when it arms police officers and engages on armed conflict around the world. Even given the possibility of an innocent person being executed isn’t that much different from the status quo where police officers can over react to perceived threats and there is wartime collateral damage. That said when you have a person in custody there will always come out reasons why this or that person should not be executed. “she has reformed”, or “he is mentally deficient”, or “the case against him isn’t as strong as it could be.” I also have an aversion to taking an action that can’t be reversed in the light of new information which would sway decisions on this one way or another. Given that the only significant advantage to having a death penalty is society’s desire for revenge, which doesn’t carry a great deal of weight with me. Thus we find in every case various potentially compelling arguments against the execution of a particular individual override the value gained by going through with the execution., and so we would be better off just outlawing executions altogether.
In the case of Robert Bales, the calculus is much different. Failing to execute him would be seen as a sign of extreme disrespect by the Afgans, further reinforcing the idea that the US is an occupying force that doesn’t care at all for Afagan civilians*
*Yes, Der Trihs I know this is what we actually are but that is not the argument here
Accidentally posted and missed edit window:
In the case of Robert Bales, the calculus is much different. Failing to execute him would be seen as a sign of extreme disrespect by the Afgans, further reinforcing the idea that the US is an occupying force that doesn’t care at all for Afagan civilians*, and in the process have a strong negative impact on our goals in Afghanistan. His death will actually probably aid our goals more than has the sacrifice of any individual US soldier or Afgan civilian that has occurred in Afganistan to date. Given that he is a vile animal, I would much rather see him die than the additional lives it would take to undo the negative impact of failing to execute him.
*Yes, Der Trihs I know this is what we actually are but that is not the argument here
ETA: I would still oppose the DP for Manson, Hitler et al. for the reasons in the previous post
That having been said, I agree that the threats of reprisals against American personnel if we don’t execute this guy are simple blackmail, and should be ignored. If somebody else attacks somebody else, I am only culpable if I could reasonably have prevented it and didn’t. That doesn’t seem to be the case here.
Besides, people who would threaten to attack Americans if we don’t execute are likely to attack Americans even if we do. Extremists can’t be placated, and need to be eradicated.
Is this actually something we know, or is it just something everybody’s taking for granted? I’ve seen it argued elsewhere that the Afghan people don’t really think this way.
We cannot make sociological predictions like the above with any degree of accuracy. We’re not quite at Foundation level yet.
But even if we could, it would be the equivalent of negotiating with terrorists. It just encourages more terrorism. One could argue that giving in this time will encourage more instances when we have to “give in” in the future.
I would expect an opponent to be against the capital punishment in all circumstances. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be an opponent. They’d be a lesser supporter.
Pardon me, but who gives a shit? This is a simple semantic label–and Dissonance is hilariously incorrect when he tells me I wasn’t being sarcastic. I don’t own a “Death Penalty Opponent” team jersey, and I don’t join teams, and I don’t feel at all sad that True Believers distance themselves from me in this or any other case. If this means some people must split hairs over whether I’m Actually a Death Penalty Opponent or not, I hope htey enjoy it, but I really don’t care and am irritated that they think I would.
My point is that my reasons for opposing the death penalty in nearly all cases within US jurisdiction don’t seem to apply here. They apply to Nazi war criminals, they apply to Charles Manson, they apply to people who shoot up elementary schools–but they don’t apply in cases in which people are likely to respond with extreme violence against third parties, and in which the murderer could reasonably have known that beforehand.
PR, and the desire to intimidate. If I understand your question.
It is part of the psychological war. von Clausewitz said the end of warfare is to break the enemy’s will to resist. If the extremists can order us around, that goes a bit further towards breaking our will to resist.
Well, I’m still confused, then. It seems a little misleading that you started a thread asking “other opponents” if they agree with you. I don’t think it’s a common thread among opponents of the death penalty that they are “all in favor of it” under certain circumstances, and I doubt that very many people would agree with you that you’re a general opponent of the death penalty. It does help to explain why you keep misrepresenting people’s opposition as some kind of hipsterism. You can try to recast this as other people being inappropriately fundamentalist if you like - and it appears you do - but it’s pretty fundamental to the debate you started.
It seems to me that you aren’t making an exception at all for this case, and neither would I. It’s just that you’re OK with the death penalty and I’m not.
I think most people who are against the death penalty are just against the death penalty. Disclaimers like “within U.S. jurisdiction” don’t enter into it.
Indeed, and that’s what I’m discussing here. There are of course people for whom there’s no hypothetical in which the death penalty is appropriate, just as there are vegans who refuse to drive because car tires contain gelatin. I don’t figure those folks have a lot to add. But others of us define our opposition to the death penalty within the world, based on its practical effects. This case is interesting because the normal parameters–keeping this guy locked up forever will reliably keep the rest of us folks safe–don’t seem to apply.
So, I can murder other people and not get the death sentence as long as I’m pretty sure some other group of people won’t murder another group of people in reprisal if I don’t get the death penalty?
I realize that a great deal of Internet discussion is based on extreme cases and crazy hypotheticals, but I don’t appreciate the suggestion that I “don’t have a lot to add” just because I’m against the death penalty without exceptions. I also don’t appreciate the insinuation that being unambiguously opposed to the death penalty is some kind of fringe weirdo position. OK, your reasons for opposing the death penalty don’t apply in this situation. That doesn’t mean mine don’t apply, and I think your arguments in this case are lacking because they boil down to almost a hostage situation: no death penalty unless you can frighten people into thinking you will kill people unless a particular person is executed.
Well, if you’re trying to find help to justify your new stance that the death penalty is OK because of your fear of what others might do, you’re not going to get much help from those of us who really do oppose the death penalty. I’m not very impressed with your reasoning. I suspect you would have opposed the civil rights struggle because some racists might kill people.
Close, actually. If you’re pretty sure that once you’re locked up, your actions won’t have repercussions that result in more innocent people dying, then yeah, I’m unlikely to advocate for your execution.
And jsgoddess, if you’ve got things to say addressing the OP, I hope you’ll stay. But if all you want to do is to tell me what team jersey I’m allowed to wear or to analyze my emotional response to people talking about kicking me out of the club or some other irrelevant bullshit, then yes, please do be done with the thread.
I apologize. I didn’t intend that insinuation. When I suggest you don’t have much to add, I am simply saying that of course someone who opposes the death penalty without exception won’t make an exception here, so the question in the OP doesn’t really apply to you. I’m not suggesting your position is as crazy as a non-driving vegan, and I again apologize for the poorly-chosen analogy.
I definitely see what you’re saying, and I think that’s the strongest argument against what I’m suggesting. The difference, I believe, is that there’s no deliberate hostage-taking here. Instead, there are folks who are taking the perfectly understandable view that, holy shit, you invade our country, and one of your people goes and murders a bunch of us, and you don’t submit him to reasonable justice? WAR!
That’s not hostage-taking. That’s something that I think a majority of Americans would do, were the situation reversed.
Do you genuinely suspect that, or did that sound cleverer in your head than it came out?