# Political Compass #42: The death penalty should be an option for serious crimes. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 22, 2004, 10:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-42-the-death-penalty-should-be-an-option-for-serious-crimes/276086 "2004-11-22T10:07:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2004, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-42-the-death-penalty-should-be-an-option-for-serious-crimes/276086/61 "2004-11-23T03:36:59Z")
Your argument also completely fails to factor in any sort of redemption. How many of these murderers will forever be unrepetant? What about the murderers that can be rehabilitated? I concede they aren’t “innocent”, but the issue isn’t so black and white. Killing fifty ultra reformed Karla Faye Tuckers types to death to spare 12 innocents begins to look like a less appealing tradeoff. ---
**Author:** ![buns3000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/c89c15/32.png) [@buns3000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buns3000)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2004, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-42-the-death-penalty-should-be-an-option-for-serious-crimes/276086/62 "2004-11-23T04:51:21Z")
Economic: -6.62 Social: -5.95 > [@roger thornhill](#): > > The idea that to punish a person because they deserve it is mere revenge, and therefore barbarous and immoral, combined with the idea that the only legitimate motives for punishment are the desire to deter others, or to mend the criminal, appears merciful but actually deprives the person of his or her human rights. > > In terms of human rights, when we stop considering what criminals deserve and consider only what will deter others, or cure them, we remove them from the sphere of justice altogether. Instead of a person with rights, we are treating the criminal as an object or a case. Firstly, nobody at this thread or anywhere I’ve seen defines “revenge” as punishment that the criminal deserves. Secondly, you apparently take it as a given that a person who commits murder “deserves” to be executed, which is a subjective call. Not everybody accepts that. As to the “human rights” argument, I’m not following. We should execute murderers so as not to deprive them of their human rights? Their human rights to be executed? > [@roger thornhill](#): > > I support the death penalty for such cases of premeditated murder as merit it. What would differentiate premeditated murders deserving of the death penalty from those not deserving of it? I’m struggling to see the circumstances in which a DP supporter might say someone guilty of _premeditated_ murder did not merit execution. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2004, 10:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-42-the-death-penalty-should-be-an-option-for-serious-crimes/276086/63 "2004-11-23T10:19:02Z")
> [@](#): > > **m33** : are you telling me that you would still be against the lesser penalty (death) - arrived at through dispassionate contemplation of a case - simply because it is different in type to other punishments? I would be against the “less harsh” punishment because it is _unneccessary_ given the punishments we already enact. (Surely, if it _is_ indeed “less harsh”, we can simply _reduce_ the term of imprisonment?) The only justification I can see for _extending_ the list of punishments, from capital to corporal to “cruel and unusual”, is revenge. Some, like **MGibson** , think this acceptable. I do not. And I speak not of the “dispassionate contemplation” of the judge or jury in a given _case_, but of the _politicians and electorate_ who advocate such an unnecessary extension. They must provide a rigorous and impassive _argument for extension_, not simply a rigorous and impassive _decision to use it_. > [@](#): > > **Rune** :Surely if it’’s barbaric to sentence someone to death it’s more barbaric to sentence him to a fate worse than death (life in prison). I have already admitted that some level of inequitable treatment is necessary. As I have explained to **marky33** , I am concerned with the _motivation_ for the choice of punishment. Life imprisonment might be “harsher”, but it is still essentially the same punitive entity as for lesser crimes. A punishment only becomes “barbaric” IMO if it the motivation for _extending_ the range of punishments (to physical, irreversible or demeaning punitive entities) is vengeance. > [@](#): > > There’’s this meme running around, that capital punishment is not deterrent. I don’’t deny it, but the only attempt I’’ve ever seen to prove it was by Amnesty International No, statistical studies abound: [Skeptical Inquirer](http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-07/capital-punishment.html)’s recent treatment is just one example of analytical rigour. > [@](#): > > Democracy demands it, and few issues are so intimately influential to the common man than the laws and their punishments. I contend that deprivation of property and liberty are the only necessary punitive entities, and that only [false](http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/m/mill/john_stuart/m645r/chapter7.html) democracy demands more. > [@](#): > > **BC** : Those who say that “killing people is wrong, period” are merely seeking to write their own moral beliefs into law. Which is effectively what we do whenever we vote, or indeed express an opinion about changing the law. I do not consider killing people to be wrong _period_, but I consider that the death penalty is unnecessary and motivated by revenge. > [@](#): > > **Martin** : it is possible that after 10 separate labs verify DNA evidence proving an accused person committed a triple homicide Remember that _framing_ is always an option. People seem to consider DNA testing to be a panacea for all miscarriages of justice, without considering how easy it is to acquire _someone else’s_ hair, skin or even used condoms to pin rape on them as well. “Beyond reasonable doubt” is all very well for sending framed people to _prison_, during which a whistleblower or acquitting evidence may come forth, but to kill them dead? > [@](#): > > So in my mind if it’s proven you kill, then you should indeed be killed. Like I asked others, in what way is natural-life imprisonment _less serious_ a punishment than death? > [@](#): > > **Shodan** : You are claiming (with no proof) that innocents have been executed, and this is one of the reasons you think we should not execute anyone. Same reasoning as me, IOW. No, like I said the first time, if an innocent person is killed by the state, **the association is direct**. You are **projecting** the deaths **given** a variable. I will explain Bayes Theorem in detail if you wish - your particular choice of variable is **arbitrary**. As for “proving innocence”, well we have not had such a burden of proof in our respective democracies for many centuries. We are _all_ likely guilty of _something_, even if it’s only speeding or the like. > [@](#): > > Same with the DP. Execute a thousand murderers, and thus spare a dozen innocents. Seems worth it to me. Execute a thousand speeders, illegal handgun possessors or even _suspected_ criminals and “innocents are spared”. Statistical fallacy. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2004, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-42-the-death-penalty-should-be-an-option-for-serious-crimes/276086/64 "2004-11-23T11:26:28Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > The only justification I can see for _extending_ the list of punishments, from capital to corporal to “cruel and unusual”, is revenge. Some, like **MGibson** , think this acceptable. I do not. Whose talking about extending the list of punishments to include corporal and “cruel and unusual”(whatever that means)? > [@](#): > > Like I asked others, in what way is natural-life imprisonment _less serious_ a punishment than death? I have no illusions that prisons are particularly nice places to live. However I’d take a sentence of 100 years over a sentence of death. Life imprisonment is a less serious punishment then death because, wait for it…YOU GET TO LIVE! In a prison I have the opportunity to read books, watch some television, and maybe find a few hobbies to occupy my time. When I’m dead I have no future as I will cease to exist. Marc ---
**Author:** ![marky33](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@marky33](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marky33)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2004, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-42-the-death-penalty-should-be-an-option-for-serious-crimes/276086/65 "2004-11-23T11:36:56Z")
> [@MGibson](#): > > I have no illusions that prisons are particularly nice places to live. However I’d take a sentence of 100 years over a sentence of death. Life imprisonment is a less serious punishment then death because, wait for it…YOU GET TO LIVE! In a prison I have the opportunity to read books, watch some television, and maybe find a few hobbies to occupy my time. When I’m dead I have no future as I will cease to exist. What would you take if your sentence, with no chance of a reprieve, was to be spent in a North Korean gulag, for example, instead of a relatively cushy western jail? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2004, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-42-the-death-penalty-should-be-an-option-for-serious-crimes/276086/66 "2004-11-23T11:42:23Z")
> [@](#): > > Whose talking about extending the list of punishments to include corporal and “cruel and unusual”(whatever that means)? Apologies, I meant only to reference you with regards to “There’s nothing wrong with a little revenge”, not to imply that you advocate physical punishments other then death. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2004, 11:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-42-the-death-penalty-should-be-an-option-for-serious-crimes/276086/67 "2004-11-23T11:49:27Z")
> [@marky33](#): > > What would you take if your sentence, with no chance of a reprieve, was to be spent in a North Korean gulag, for example, instead of a relatively cushy western jail? I think if the choice was between certain death and the gulag I’d take the gulag. As bad as the gulags are there is always a chance I could be freed. There are refugees in S. Korea who were sentenced to those N. Korean gulags. Marc ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2004, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-42-the-death-penalty-should-be-an-option-for-serious-crimes/276086/68 "2004-11-23T13:16:20Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > No, like I said the first time, if an innocent person is killed by the state, **the association is direct**. You are **projecting** the deaths **given** a variable. Aren’t you doing the same? You are projecting some innocent executions, given a statistic of the same in the past. > [@SentientMeat](#): > > I will explain Bayes Theorem in detail if you wish - your particular choice of variable is **arbitrary**. Please do - I don’t think I understand your contention. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2004, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-42-the-death-penalty-should-be-an-option-for-serious-crimes/276086/69 "2004-11-23T13:44:15Z")
> [@](#): > > Aren’t you doing the same? You are projecting some innocent executions, given a statistic of the same in the past. No - let us put “innocent executions” to one side for a moment, since this relates more to the ‘real world’ sentences and evidence. **If** an innocent person were to be executed, **then** an innocent person will have been killed: the association is **direct**. There is no _inductive, probabilistic or statistical_ step there: the relationship is a _syllogism_ (indeed it is pretty much a _tautology_.) What you are saying is **If** someone convicted of crime X were to be released, **then** an innocent person _would **likely** be_ killed: you are examining the **probability** of an association between crime-X-conviction and subsequent-innocent-death. You have moved from the _deductive_ to the _inductive_, an utterly different form of investigating propositions. > [@](#): > > Please do [explain Bayes] Bayes theorem tells us how to deal with _prior_ and _posterior_ probability distributions. You are asking us to consider the probability of “subsequent innocent death” **given** conviction of a particular crime. You are indulging in a form of the [Prosecuter’s fallacy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor%27s_fallacy) by **arbitrarily** limiting the sample to convicts of the crime of murder. **There is no more reason to choose this set than other sets, such as speeders or illegal firearm possessors, in your calculation of the _posterior_ probability.** ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2004, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-42-the-death-penalty-should-be-an-option-for-serious-crimes/276086/70 "2004-11-23T13:49:20Z")
And I have no interest in attempting to prove any _real-life_ executee “innocent”: I believe that Aileen Wuornous suffered a mistrial and _would not have been executed_ given a competent defence, but I cannot prove that she _didn’t_ act in self defence any more than I can prove the nonexistence of garden fairies. That is the nature of burden of proof. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2004, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-42-the-death-penalty-should-be-an-option-for-serious-crimes/276086/71 "2004-11-23T19:50:25Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > And I have no interest in attempting to prove any _real-life_ executee “innocent”: I believe that Aileen Wuornous suffered a mistrial and _would not have been executed_ given a competent defence, but I cannot prove that she _didn’t_ act in self defence any more than I can prove the nonexistence of garden fairies. That is the nature of burden of proof. What would be the legal basis for a mistrial? She had a competant lawyer for her appeal and the court upheld the sentence. You guys need to find better poster children for your cause other then Mumia and Wuornous. Marc ---
**Author:** ![roger\_thornhill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@roger\_thornhill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/roger_thornhill)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2004, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-42-the-death-penalty-should-be-an-option-for-serious-crimes/276086/72 "2004-11-24T01:10:17Z")
> [@buns3000](#): > > Firstly, nobody at this thread or anywhere I’ve seen defines “revenge” as punishment that the criminal deserves. I take it to be the generally held position of those who believe in a humanitarian theory of punishment - including the OP - that to punish a person because he or she deserves it, as much as he or she deserves it, is mere revenge. Thus, when **SM** writes “If deterrence and punishment provide no additional justification over imprisonment, and I do not believe that they do, then we are left with revenge as the sole justification”, my response is that he is putting the cart before the horse. For, while “Is it deserved?” is not the only question we can ask about a punishment, it _is_ the first question we should ask. Deterrence (and reforming the criminal) are secondary considerations. We should also note that imprisonment _is_ punishment, just a different kind of punishment to capital punishment. This relationship is rather confused in the formulation “if deterrence and _punishment_ provide no additional justification over _imprisonment_”. > [@buns3000](#): > > Secondly, you apparently take it as a given that a person who commits murder “deserves” to be executed, which is a subjective call. Not everybody accepts that. Yes, my view is that fixing the right sentence is a moral problem, ultimately based on what C.S. Lewis in \*The Abolition of Man \* calls the Tao (or the Law of Nature) and the Bible. > [@buns3000](#): > > As to the “human rights” argument, I’m not following. We should execute murderers so as not to deprive them of their human rights? Their human rights to be executed? This has to do with the distinction between desert, on the one hand, and deterrence (and indeed reform), on the other. It doesn’t make sense to talk about a “just deterrent”, since we demand of a deterrent not whether it is just but whether it will deter. When we stop thinking in tems of what a criminal deserves and consider only what will deter others (or reform him/her), we have removed him/her from the sphere of justice altogether. It is in this sense that instead of dealing with a human being, a subject of rights, we are now dealing with an object. > [@buns3000](#): > > What would differentiate premeditated murders deserving of the death penalty from those not deserving of it? I’m struggling to see the circumstances in which a DP supporter might say someone guilty of _premeditated_ murder did not merit execution. I was making allowances for the fact that different countries may have differences in terms of such things as the age of responsibility. ---
**Author:** ![Jillyvn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecb155/32.png) [@Jillyvn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jillyvn)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2004, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-42-the-death-penalty-should-be-an-option-for-serious-crimes/276086/73 "2004-11-24T02:07:38Z")
This thread is very interesting to me, great to hear people much smarter than I debate an issue I’ve struggled with. One of the hardest aspects in the death penalty debate for me to overcome has been the emotional response we, as a society, have to certain crimes. I’m all for cool logic, but it just doesn’t translate into the real world all the time. When ever someone asks me if I’m against the death penalty, I always answer yes. A common follow up I’ve encountered to this question is, “If you could go back in time and kill Hitler before he assumed power (or insert your mass murderer/dictator of choice here), would you?” My answer is invariably yes. Figure that out… —\*Btw, I’d like to see a thread on mandatory castration for pedophiles and sex offenders (I’m new to the board, so if this has been done, apologies) - Rebekkah ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2004, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-42-the-death-penalty-should-be-an-option-for-serious-crimes/276086/74 "2004-11-24T02:31:55Z")
> [@Rebekkah](#): > > When ever someone asks me if I’m against the death penalty, I always answer yes. A common follow up I’ve encountered to this question is, “If you could go back in time and kill Hitler before he assumed power (or insert your mass murderer/dictator of choice here), would you?” My answer is invariably yes. Figure that out… With Hitler you have the benefit of hindsight. With most death penalty cases you are dealing with what they did in the past, which is no guarantee of how they are going to turn out in the future. The death penalty is about punishing prior bad acts, but it makes the folly of freeze framing someone at their worst moment and assuming they will always be bad and not worthy of life. ---
**Author:** ![kung\_fu\_lola](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f4b2a3/32.png) [@kung\_fu\_lola](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kung_fu_lola)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2004, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-42-the-death-penalty-should-be-an-option-for-serious-crimes/276086/75 "2004-12-14T15:26:33Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Only as ironic as becoming an imprisoning kidnapper by sentencing someone for the crime of kidnapping and false imprisonment, as I argued [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=287969). I don’t think the analogy holds. In the case of arresting and imprisoning individuals, there is an obligation on the part of the “captors” to justify their actions and demonstrate that by imprisoning the person in question, they are acting in the public interest . They are held to a set of standards. For every single person they arrest and detain, the onus is on them to prove that they used their authority in the correct way. Barring the Patriot (or, up here War Measures) Act, no one just gets pulled off the street for no reason. Imprisonment of individuals has a specific purpose (to protect them and the public). It is a consequence of breaking the law that every five-year old knows about, and IMO in most cases it’s an appropriate consequence. It really doesn’t compare to snatching a fifteen year old girl off the street because she’s got a purty mouth, except on a very superficial level. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2004, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-42-the-death-penalty-should-be-an-option-for-serious-crimes/276086/76 "2004-12-14T15:40:22Z")
The analogy was not between with the state’s incarceration or judicial _process_, but with the _legal status_ of a penalty of incarceration for one who incarcerated another illegally. If the death penalty of murderers is _legal_, that does not make the _state_ a **murderer** any more than the legal status of imprisonment makes the state a kidnapper. Clearly, _both_ incarceration and execution are counter to the will of the _criminal_. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2004, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-42-the-death-penalty-should-be-an-option-for-serious-crimes/276086/77 "2004-12-14T22:54:32Z")
**SentientMeat** - It is possible that I am not understanding your objection. Nonetheless, I will follow up and you can correct whatever misconceptions I am holding. > [@SentientMeat](#): > > **If** an innocent person were to be executed, **then** an innocent person will have been killed: the association is **direct**. There is no _inductive, probabilistic or statistical_ step there: the relationship is a _syllogism_ (indeed it is pretty much a _tautology_.) Very true. Similarly, if an innocent person is murdered, the association is equally direct. Yes? > [@SentientMeat](#): > > What you are saying is **If** someone convicted of crime X were to be released, **then** an innocent person _would **likely** be_ killed: you are examining the **probability** of an association between crime-X-conviction and subsequent-innocent-death. You have moved from the _deductive_ to the _inductive_, an utterly different form of investigating propositions. Yes, indeed. Might I also suggest that the suggestion that “one innocent person has been executed, and therefore it might happen again” is doing the same thing? “We can’t execute anyone, because one of them _might_ be innocent, and that would invalidate our whole system” is just as much a statement of probability as “we have to kill them all, because one of them _might_ kill again”. I am not really changing from deductive to inductive, so much as countering one inductive statement with another. Your “if” statement (if an innocent is murdered) removes the statistical element from your argument, and, as you say, the conclusion follows inescapably. So does mine. “If a murderer repeats his crime…” means that an innocent has died just as surely as your “if” does. > [@SentientMeat](#): > > Bayes theorem tells us how to deal with _prior_ and _posterior_ probability distributions. You are asking us to consider the probability of “subsequent innocent death” **given** conviction of a particular crime. You are indulging in a form of the [Prosecuter’s fallacy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor%27s_fallacy) by **arbitrarily** limiting the sample to convicts of the crime of murder. > > **There is no more reason to choose this set than other sets, such as speeders or illegal firearm possessors, in your calculation of the _posterior_ probability.** Again, I may not be understanding your argument, but the choice of “convicted murderers” as the set to whom my argument applies is not arbitrary. Only “convicted murderers” are eligible for the death penalty. This has to do with commonly held notions of justice and proportionate punishment, but it is not arbitrary. The concept of “a life for a life” is the reason that convicted murderers can be considered for execution, and thus spare lives. Keep in mind, that my predictions of how many murderers will repeat the crime are not aimed at any specific individual. You are certainly correct that the 1.2% chance that any one convict will kill again is small. The chance that a thousand convicts will commit ( **considered as a group** ) twelve further murders is much higher. That is the nature of group statistics. The chance that I flip a coin and have it come up heads is exactly 50%, obviously. Having it come up heads ten times in a row is not impossible. But the more times you flip, the more likely you are to approach a 50-50 distribution. Similarly, the more murderers you execute, the more likely it is that one of them was innocent. And it is more and more likely that you have saved an innocent person as well. The question remains, which is the more common outcome? You are correct that you cannot be **certain** that any of the executed would have murdered again. You can, I suppose, be more nearly certain that one of them were innocent, supposing some new evidence became available or something. And I hear a lot of people arguing that we should never execute anyone, because we can’t take that chance. But notice that this is a chance-based argument. Just like mine. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Iskatel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a5b964/32.png) [@Iskatel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iskatel)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2004, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-42-the-death-penalty-should-be-an-option-for-serious-crimes/276086/78 "2004-12-15T00:57:41Z")
> [@BrotherCadfael](#): > > Those who say that “killing people is wrong, period” are merely seeking to write their own moral beliefs into law. I’ve read this sentence a few times. I’m trying to come to sorts with it. I’m one of those people who believes that “killing people is wrong, period”, and I’m trying to figure out if that is writing moral beliefs into law, and whether or not that is true, is it valid. An argument could be made that all law is a manifestation of moral beliefs. Sometimes this can be disguised as “inalienable rights” - but, for instance, is anti-slavery legislation a “moral belief” written into law? Or do beliefs like that only count when they swing into your moral compass? To expand the idea further, is mutilation (say, genital mutilation for rapists, or chopping off the hands of thieves, or whatever) a “moral belief”? Would your “amoral” legislation allow for what may **morally** be termed “cruel and unusual punishment”? I think that all law is based on moral terms. You either have a right, or not. I have to ask this question of you, because I’m curious how you’ll answer: how would you outline a true amoral legal system? ---
**Author:** ![Iskatel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a5b964/32.png) [@Iskatel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iskatel)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2004, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-42-the-death-penalty-should-be-an-option-for-serious-crimes/276086/79 "2004-12-15T01:03:57Z")
> [@Rebekkah](#): > > A common follow up I’ve encountered to this question is, “If you could go back in time and kill Hitler before he assumed power (or insert your mass murderer/dictator of choice here), would you?” My answer is invariably yes. Figure that out… I don’t think you have to answer yes. If on the absurd hypothetical you’re going back in time and can affect history, there are many different paths you can choose to enforce this change. The idea “go back in time and kill Hitler” is a pretty kneejerk, and if I may be so bold, stupid, way to handle the situation. It represents a mindset that is simple - kill or be killed - rather than a more, I’ll be bold again, “enlightened” mindset where you consider actions and re-actions, and different ways of solving the problem. Besides, if we’ve learned anything from computer games, if you go back in time and kill Hitler, Stalin just takes over everything. ---
**Author:** ![EsotericEnigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e274bd/32.png) [@EsotericEnigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EsotericEnigma)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2004, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-42-the-death-penalty-should-be-an-option-for-serious-crimes/276086/80 "2004-12-15T02:07:20Z")
Strongly Disagree. Nobody, no institution or group of people, should have the power or authority to decide that someone else deserves to die, no matter who the person is. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-42-the-death-penalty-should-be-an-option-for-serious-crimes/276086.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-42-the-death-penalty-should-be-an-option-for-serious-crimes/276086.md?page=5)