CandidGamera, This Year’s Model, Bippy the Beardless, kelly5078, and Left Hand of Dorkness, let me say this.
I hope you never are affected by someone that does something that would qualify them for the death penalty. An honest wish.
Here, here - I hope the same.
But further, should (and I am ***NOT ** * wishing this on any of you) something terrible happen to you or to someone you care about where the perpetrator would be eligible for a death sentence, I also hope you can continue your very moral and very admirable stance of being against the death penalty in all cases.
I admire your stance, even if I disagree, but I do wonder what if…
WTF?
I support the Death Penalty.
I was just being funny about it.
Too many people, sadly, seem to work from the presumption that satire/parody/ironic commentary is exclusively the province of opposition to that which is being commented upon, even in a case like this where we are discussing a pure hypothetical extreme scenario. I could tell that your post gave me no info about your position on Real-World DP, but congratulations anyway on landing a perfect 10.0 whoosh on at least two other readers w/o even trying.
I think a lot of people are skipping past the OP hypothetical wherein we presume Perfect Knowledge. I believe you were playing on the earlier-mentioned corollary that with TRUE Perfect Knowledge we would not only be able to know 100% for sure that they did it, but also to know 100% for sure WHY they did it and whether there’s true remorse or any risk to repeat.
So kind of you. Let me also wish that I hope your children are never in a situation where an abortion is an appropriate choice for them–also an honest wish. What the heck does that have to do with anything?
Daniel
Thanks. I, too, hope abortion is never an option my daughter has to consider.
I will say that I hope, if I’m ever visited by such a tragedy, that I don’t let my base desire for vengeance overwhelm my better ethical self. I can’t guarantee that that will be the case, though–which is wh I am glad that capital punishment is decided by a society and not by the more direct victims of the crime.
Daniel
That’s why no matter the ultimate punishment available, relatives and those whom know any of the parties in the case are not allowed to serve on the jury that might hand down a death sentence.
Even if you were the most upstanding citizen in your city, you would be booted from jury duty if you ever had any contact with the defendant. Whether positive or negative.
Thanks.
I mean, really and truly - the death penalty is a reasonable deterrent for some crimes. But think about it… if you could face the death penalty for stealing - would you ever steal anything? Heck, no.
It’s true. And if I could get the death penalty for not saying “excuse me” after belching, then I would always say, “excuse me” after belching.
Nonetheless, that’s not the world I want to live in. I’m pretty damned happy that people don’t get caned for chewing gum where I live, and I’m pretty damned happy the death penalty is rare as it is; even with perfect knowledge, I’d be even happier if the death penalty were nonexistent where I live.
What crimes you commit as an individual places a burden on your conscience. The violence commited by the state in my name places a burden on mine. I could do without, frankly.
Daniel
I guess I phrased my statement incorrect, and apologise if you feel insulted.
I meant to suggest that the victims of violent crime have a different view towards capitol punishment, right or wrong. I also stated that I admire those who are staunchly against the death penalty, but again wonder if their minds might change if they became the victim of a DP-worthy crime.
Actually, I hadn’t seen your comment when I responded to duffer’s. It’s an honest thing to wonder; as I said, I can’t really say how I’d respond. I hope I wouldn’t let bloodlust overwhelm me, but who can say how they’ll respond in the face of the incomprehensible?
It’s like that old joke: a liberal is just a conservative who’s been downsized.
Daniel
LHOD - Yes, it is an interesting premise to wonder about - I kind of think (not to put words in his mouth) that that was what **Duffer ** was trying to say as well.
Or as my grandfather likes to say (he’s 84 and about as conservative as they come) that if you’re not liberal when you’re young you have no heart, if you’re not conservative when you’re old you don’t have any brains.
I tend to disagree (I’m 31 and getting more liberal as I age) but it does have merit…
Firstly - yes, you certainly whoosed me. 
To the point - some of the places that have the most violent response to crime (cutting off hands of thieves, execution for adultury, etc…) still have problems with those crimes.
I don’t think the death penalty is a reasonable deterrent, and would only use it in those cases where the criminal was likely to re-offend. All of the cases I spoke of in my post would be cases where the criminal was highly likely to re-offend, or where the damage was so incredible to the victim that there is no way they could ever make amends (child rape, etc…).
But based on the number of people on death row in this country and many many others, yet with the crimes that warrant death still being perpetrated, it should be indicative that the death penalty is NOT a deterrent.
With the additional information, it’s an acceptable question. By itself, the “sincere wish” came across as an underhanded way to dismiss the views of those who oppose capital punishment, a way of saying, “Yeah, you don’t believe in it because it’s never mattered to you, but as soon as it matters, you’ll see the light.”
If that’s not how it was intended, I apologize. We anti-death-penalty folks are all too familiar with that fallacious argument, however, and I may be a little quick to see it where it’s not intended.
Daniel
Which is why I added my qualifier about paring down laws before doing such things, if one were to broaden the range of crimes for which the death penalty could apply.
I look at it this way - you have no right… no business… no reason to steal from a private individual something which is indisputably theirs.
You have failed to respect that person’s rights - and that’s wrong. Ethically, Morally, societally. So we don’t want that to happen.
If the punishment “fits” the crime, then a lot of people, after a cost-benefits analysis, will do the crime.
This is the difference between myself and you (and myself and John Locke, for that matter). I don’t see property rights as rights in themselves; I see them as fictitious rights that help us organize the broader rights of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc. They generally work, but they’re not absolute.
That’s why, for example, you’re not allowed to spray your apple fields with cancer-causing pesticides if my house is a hundred feet downwind from you. That’s why imminent domain exists. That’s why your taxes pay for Medicaid. I think these are all good things, though they all violate property rights.
Property rights are a convenient means to an end. The right to life is an end in and of itself, and always trumps property rights.
Daniel
Fair enough. Then let’s take a different example, more in line with your thinking. Kidnapping. The criminal has deprived someone of their liberty.
Would you then allow for the Death Penalty?
If I could interject into what was a bit of a 1-1 dialogue, then for me, it depends on circumstances.
Was it simple kidnapping, where the victim was safe and cared for? Or did the kidnappers violently yank someone off the street and torture them in a hole and send body parts to the family to ensure payment? Are the perpetrators likely to re-offend?
If it was violent and the kidnappers will try it again if ever released, then yes I would say that they deserve the death penalty.
CAVEAT - this is still assuming we both their absolute guilt without question and that they will re-offend. As this capability does not exist now, I say no and so does the legal code of most states and the Federal government.
No. Not even for murder would I allow it, because it doesn’t balance anything.
In Buffy the Vampire Slayer, a bad guy (girl, actually) tries to murder a good vampire with a slow poison, the only cure for which is the lifeblood of a slayer. Fortunately, the bad girl is a slayer, so Our Heroine sets off to kill this rogue slayer to save the life of the vampire.
I’m all about that kind of logic: if we could kill murderers in order to restore life to their victims, I’d be pro-death-penalty in such cases.
But that’s not how it works. All you end up with at the end is an extra corpse.
If deterrence worked, I’d probably be pro-death-penalty. But it doesn’t.
Daniel