Some of us don’t see it as a problem that needs to be addressed. You’re assuming the conclusion that you actually need to demonstrate, which I’m pretty sure is some sort of logical fallacy.
Perhaps you could outline the conclusion that I actually need to demonstrate. You seem to engage in woolly thinking.
There are several undeniable problems concerning judicial killing. This does not mean the judicial killing is wrong, but merely that it involves problems:
Method
Effect on the perpetrators
Effect of the standing of the killing state in the rest of the world including international relations.
Morality
Constitutionality
and so on.
Now I happen to believe from my moral standpoint that judicial killing is almost always wrong. I derive this from several ethical and judicial principles- sanctity of Human Life, the Golden Rule and the Law of Necessity among others. From these principles I derive a belief that Judicial Killing is neither necessary nor desirable. Other views are possible, but these too will need to be argued from ethical and legal positions.
The fact that the USA is an outlier among modern democratic and rule of law states (and has similarly been an outlier and wrong about other moral matters- slavery, miscegenation, separate but equal) should give an educated person reason to question whether the US is once again in temporal error over this issue. We should learn from history.
Thank you. I’m wondering whether the error percentage is lower: there may also be scope for further improvement, perhaps with pre-constructed tracks for the rifles.
I see the guillotine suffers from the, “How long does the head remain alive?” question. Many authorities scoff at these concerns, but they can’t be wholly discounted.
Hanging has its attractions: at least when it’s botched you know it. The 3 stage lethal injection process embodied cowardice, at least to the extent that the muscle relaxant gave a misleading picture of what may or may not have actually transpired once the heart attack drug was administered.
“We?” I thought you were British?
Mary Queen of Scots famously required several chops of the axe to get beheaded. That did predate the guillotine era, though…
…which reminds me of a story. Three prisoners were sentenced to be executed via guillotine, on the same day in succession. Each one was asked if they would prefer to be placed in the guillotine face up or face down; only the third man chose face up.
When the first man was positioned and the blade dropped, the machine came to a sudden, creaking halt with the blade frozen mere inches above the condemned man’s neck. Since the law at the time required a prisoner to be released if the guillotine didn’t work (something about “God’s Grace” interceding on his behalf), he was set free.
The second man was placed in the guillotine, and once again, the blade got stuck. He was also set free.
The third man, while being settled into his face-up position, caught the executioner’s attention and said, “You know, I think I see what’s wrong…”
I do love the ad hominem responses indicating lack of real argument.
By ‘we’ I meant ‘humans’- you know that concept of all of humanity, not just Americans. Difficult to grasp from a xenophobic point of view, but definitely a concept worth considering.
He was actually asking a question because you had spoken in an unclear way, that isn’t an ad hominem attack. In fact I don’t believe you actually know what an ad hominem attack is.
Why are the countries you list more civilized than China or India? Not more developed, but more civilized. Explain why these countries are more barbaric without referencing executions, because you cannot assume the conclusion of your argument in explaining your argument.
This isn’t a problem, it’s only a problem when a State acts stupid, like the United States does, by trying stupid execution methods. Beheading, firing squad, or hanging done with an appropriate drop are all essentially error free.
Not really a societal problem worthy of note. The portion of the population employed in jobs where they have a direct hand in executions is very small.
There is no effect, aside from China all of our largest trading partners prohibit capital punishment. We have deep military alliances with them, many of them assisted us in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars etc. About the only meaningful impact is it means they won’t extradite someone facing a capital charge without a promise of not seeking the death penalty. But most capital defendants the prosecution doesn’t seek the death penalty in any case, so that has a minor impact on anything. Further, the number of persons who commit capital crimes, flee the United States, and need to be extradited back is very small.
This is your only point I can agree is a valid problem with the death penalty. My view on it is, that as applied by the United States the death penalty cannot be executed morally. Too many problems with equitable treatment under the law, improper defense, improper convictions. Our criminal justice system itself would need substantial reforms before I felt comfortable letting the State execute people.
The actual act of a State killing though, is not immoral. And all States, including the “civilized ones” you named off earlier, kill people all the time. I don’t view any moral difference between killings that result from execution of a death warrant and other types of State killings.
Our Supreme Court has been pretty clear on what’s constitutional/not about the death penalty. It’s really not a problem at present, but it could be if they keep trying experimental lethal injection drugs.
Let me add:
Practicality - Is a major problem with the death penalty in the United States, and not mentioned in your list. It serves little practical purpose in its current form.
For someone who keeps pointing out ad hominem attacks, you sure make a lot of them.
Just saying…
Something like this (from Mythbusters).
Just saying… you don’t seem to understand the rules of debate, or the meaning of ‘ad hominem’. Let me educate you… ‘ad hominem’ means attacking the debater, not the point being made. Pointing out logical and debating fallacies is part of the process, not an attack on a person, but pointing out an error in their debating style.
Consider yourself educated.
Now point out somewhere where I attacked an individual rather than pointed out why I disagreed with their beliefs…
“The death penalty is barbaric and uncivilized. How do we know this? …Because, the death penalty is barbaric and uncivilized.”
Kind of circular or self-referencing logic.
He was not asking a question- he was implying that because I was not American, I should not have a valued view:
““We?” I thought you were British?”
Discounting someone’s belief because of their nationality is an ad hominem attack.
End of…
To be a fully paid up member of the civilised world, I would suggest some simple tests:
Does the individual have understandable and comprehensive rights against the state?
Can they enforce them in fair tribunals?
Can individuals and groups influence governments in a manner that does not require violence?
Is there a respect for human life, especially that that differs from them in race, belief, gender, behaviour?
Do they respect the doctrine of just action and necessity?
Do they respect the Golden rule, or at least the Silver Rule?
Now you have conflated India, which largely complies with those requirements with China which patently does not.
The USA complies with much of that list but deviates from the majority of the other countries on the list by state and public support for vengeance and retaliation. This is clear from its massive problem with its Prison system (a quarter of all the prisoners in the world are in US jails) and its love of violence ranging from the death penalty to its acceptance of regular school massacres for the sake of the interesting reading of the second amendment.
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde;17579874
This isn’t a problem, it’s only a problem when a State acts stupid, like the United States does, by trying stupid execution methods. Beheading, firing squad, or hanging done with an appropriate drop are all essentially error free.[/QUOTE]
Method is important as I have noted elsewhere. It is a fine balance between acceptance and abomination, and most methods are open to question for being too close to torture, even keeping people on death row for 25 years and killing them when they have repented.
So would you find execution by overdose-of-anesthesia acceptable?
That is what is being tried now by ill-educated incompetent state employees. Anaesthesia is a complex subject requiring considerable skill from both anaesthetists and others ( I have worked as a nurse assisting anaesthetics.
It is likely that anyone skilled enough to do it would be forbidden by their professional body, and those who currently have the knowledge would be unable to train others for the same reason.
I am against all methods of non-avoidable state killing, but find the attempts to claim that current procedures are not cruel and unusual are hypocrisy of the highest degree.
No, anesthesia in **surgery **is complicated and requires great skill because the patient is to be kept alive. That’s why it requires great precision.
An execution, where the object is to **kill **the person, is far simpler. Just inject an overdose of anesthetic into the veins. The need for the delicate balance and complex calculations necessary to ensure patient survival in the operating room doesn’t exist in this situation.
Go on. Display your ignorance.
Your approach is what has led to the recent abominations with people NOT being killed immediately, but being tortured.
Go on, display your expertise and describe exactly what anaesthesa actually means- you may need to consult something wiser than your gut feelings.
What does any of that have to do with bring ‘civilised’?
If you’re using a definition of civilization that excludes modern Iran, China and Cuba, as well as places like the Soviet Union a couple decades ago, then all I can say is that’s not a definition of civilisation I’m accustomed to.
Incidentally, your chance of suffering horrible abuse on account of your race or gender is much greater in India today than in China, but I expect you knew that.