What is with “100% no death penalty under any circumstances” type people???

The BBQ Pit
1

The problem:
If no DP, then there can be no “Self Defense” in many cases.

There is a time problem as I see it. Too keep it from going all astray before I get some answers to what puzzles me, lets please use just this one example for now. ( You fucking idiots!!! – so it can be in the pit cause it is gonna end up here anyway.)

Example:
Small woman and 2 children with no chance of outside help for 30 minutes.
Large guy walks up and starts to strangle one child with his hands.

She has seconds to stop him. She only has a gun. She can’t shoot well nuff to just shoot his arms or wound him to make him quit, she needs to kill him to make him stop. ( To keep this within parameters, she has only two choices, to kill him or not. No wounding and/or waiting for help. She either kills or the child dies. )

Can she kill to him without waiting for a court to do it?

If you answer “No, she can’t kill him” , then we got nothing to discuss and I hope you are willing to go where you are sending her.

Now, if you say “Yes”, how can you be 100% against the DP?

Now this is where I really want a good answer that might change my mind…

Is your problem about time or intent?

The guy kills child #1 and before she can fire ( She has a real slow draw ) he turns away and says, “I give up.” and puts his hands up.
Now, can she still shoot him?
(1) Yes, until he says he gives up.
(2) No, if the child is dead, she can no longer shoot him no matter which way he is facing. ( I say, “Why the fuck not?” – IMO, she can kill him up until the cops get there if she can get it done. )

Okay, the child is dead and he has given up and turned his back so we are waiting on the cops. Now he turns around and says, "Nope, gonna kill your #2 child and starts to strangle child # 2.
Once again, with her being so slow on the draw, he kills the kid and again says, “I give up and turns his back.” Can she shoot him? If not, why the fuck not? She is obviously slow on the draw and he might go for her next. With what has happened before, it is likely, so, can she shoot him anyway just to be safe? Or must it be within seconds and he must be facing her?

If you say yes to any of the "Can she kill him in defense of her children or her self, then how can you be 100% against the DP? She is applying it to him.

Just because she was slow on the draw, she did not get him stopped so the cops come and he goes to court and he gets to live? Is it about time involved? Or jus that once she foolishly lets the cops have him, then the State can’t do it. That is not 100% against the DP

How can 100% anti-DP people say it is okay to have SD? How can you draw the line in my above example?

(So this will stay in the pit) I am so tired of the foolish people who have not really thought through the 100% anti-DP stance.

2

In that scenario, she’d be killing the guy to prevent him from killing her or her kids. Not because he killed anybody, but because he might kill somebody. The death penalty doesn’t do more to prevent future killings than life in prison without parole.

Protection vs. vengeance is the distinction. How is that a contradiction?

3

Well, your OP went off the rails right there…

I’m a pro-DP democrat and your logic seems a bit iffy to me.

The use of deadly force for self defense does not equal the death penalty.

4

Um, I won’t speak for the others that don’t agree with the death penalty, but mostly i think you are cracked. The death penalty has nothing to do with self defence. The death penalty has to do with using my tax dollars to premeditate someone’s death.

5

If by not killing a man about to kill you, you’d be letting him kill you, then you have a right to kill him, if it appears to be the only way to stop him from killing you.

Once you let the SOCIETY be a SOCIETY the murders, you’ve changed the whole face of that society. Far from being a deterrent, a systemically violent society of that nature is more likely to have a higher murder rate.

But a more inarguable reason is that there are too many variables that become involved in the process: too many fallibe human beings involved. Too many ambitious prosecutors, corrupt cops, fearful witnesses, stupid witnesses, whatever. The number of innocent mean who’ve been taken off death row since the advent of DNA testing should make it abundantly clear that we do not have a system that’s up to the task of deciding who should live and who should die.

Then there’s the cost: it costs a great deal more to try and convict and execute a capital case than it takes to house the perp for life.

6

The key word here is “penalty.” Killing a person in self-defense is not the same as killing as a penalty for a crime.

7

FTR, I’m against the dealth penalty, so here’s my 2 cents:
Is she justified in killing the man after he kills child #1? Yes. Why? Because there is no way to think he won’t kill the other child, or herself. Self defense is just that, killing someone because you are reasonably sure they present an immediate threat to your, or someone else’s, life. However, you do present a very iffy situation, since the murderer gives up. I would say that it would be bad form to kill him if he gave up. And indeed, if he turned his back to her, and then she shot him, the police would probably arrest her, since they could tell from the entry wound that he had his back to her and wasn’t an immediate threat. But, if he then killed child #2 and gave up again, she is justified, cause he has shown that he is not sincere, and therefore presents a threat to herself.

Now, you ask, how can I be for killing in self-defense but against the death penalty? Well, go look at the word I put in italics. Immediate threat. Once the murderer is in prison, he is no longer an immediate threat. There is no reason to assume he will kill someone else. It’s just that simple. Killing because someone will kill someone else is usually OK, but assuming that they will kill again is stupid.

8

Once the dude is in custody, exactly who is he threatening? He’s either in prison, or cuffed and guarded by skilled officers. Sitting in Sing Sing, he’s not going to be strangling me or my kids, it is not necessary to kill him to make us safe.

While it may also not be technically necessary to kill your strangler, we as a society accept that non-lethal methods are highly unreliable and give the benefit of the doubt to the person being attacked. They can use deadly force if that is the only reasonable method available to protect their safety.

Personally, I am not in favor of the death penalty. Not because I don’t find death an appropriate punishment for some offenders, but because the possibility of misapplication is too high for my taste.

9

I don’t favor the death penalty in most cases. The exceptions are mass or serial murder, or murder with special circumstances, like kidnap/torture. Those I can stand having society erase. But other than that, if someone needs to die, then I’ll kill him myself. “Self-defense” doesn’t bother me one bit. Double-tap to the chest, then one in the face for luck.

10

Death penalty = death as punishment

Death in self-defence = death resulting from self-preservation

Totally different things. I’m 100% the DP but I accept the necessity of a soldier. I’m 100% against the DP but I would feel little remorse killing someone who was trying to kill me or someone I love.

11

I think to a certain degree, being pro-DP has to do with a sense of “justice.” When someone commits a murder, they have deliberately chosen to take away from their victim of thousands of days of life, the only days of life they will ever have. Depending on the age of their victim, they have deprived that person of birthdays, Christmases, July 4th celebrations, etc., with their families. They have deprived their victims of thousands of sunrises and sunsets. They have deprived them of countless enjoyments. They have permanently and irrevocably taken away from them the joys of making love; of the opportunity to travel and learn about the world; to enjoy music, fine food and wine; and of watching their children and grandchildren live and grow. And they have inflicted a lifetime of pain and sorrow on the family members and loved ones of those who they have killed.

It offends my sense of what is fair and just that such a person should be allowed to continue to draw breath after having deliberately deprived someone else of the ability to do the same. My being pro-DP has nothing to do with blood lust; it has to do with a sense of what is fair, right and just.

12

Someone who commits murder has done a barbaric act. Premeditated murder of someone who has murdered is also barbaric. I do not like being associated with states that commit barbaric acts. It reminds me of Saudi Arabia and Iran. We’re supposed to be better than that.

13

As I read the posts, I began to prepare my mental thesis. Kudos to Starving Artist for capturing my thoughts and expressing them so eloquently.

14

One of the most bizarre things in my mind about the anti-death penalty crowd is their almost unilateral support for life in prison without parole.
Ummm… right.
We’re not going to kill people, we’re just going to lock them up until they die. :dubious:
The death penalty just provides a faster, mumblemumble, cheaper way of dealing with hardened violent criminals. As for the possibility of innocent people being put to death; I cannot speak for others, but I would be willing to give my life in the knowledge that murderers and rapists were being prevented from hurting anyone else, ever. Given that, all told, a human life isn’t worth very much, that is the yardstick by which I judge. Arguments about the possibilities of killing people who could have gone on to great things are sophistic games. Who knows how many cures for cancer or AIDS have already been aborted by war, famine, disease, or the violence of those who are the ones being executed?

15

I also draw the distinction between “prevention” and “retribution.” I see killing someone in self-defense, or in defense of others, as a matter of preventing further killing. As long as the killer is securely restrained from having any opportunity to kill others, I would label the death as retribution.

To use the OP scenario, I would say that when the guy killed the first kid, the woman would be morally justified in killing the murderer to prevent further murder, but not once the police had the person in custody.

16

As others have pointed out, this part of your post is completely nonsensical, and precludes any real debate over the issue of the death penalty.

I oppose the death penalty under all circumstances, but i completely support people’s right to defend themselves and their families against attack. In fact, some people who oppose the death penalty, mainly those who are committed pacifists, argue that self-defence is the only occasion where violence is acceptable.

You might want to check your facts and figures on that one, genius.

Please, feel free to go right ahead. But, before you do, perhaps you’d explain how the same thing isn’t accomplished by keeping such people locked up in prison.

Maybe you’d also be happy to tell the 100+ people who have been released from death row after being found innocent that they should have given up their lives for the cause. The 100th such person is discussed in this 2002 article.

Yes, but in judging the value of others’ lives, you shouldn’t use your own as a yardstick.

Show me one person who’s ever made the argument that the death penalty is wrong because it deprives society of potential greatness. At least have the integrity to address the issues honestly. Sophistry, indeed!

17

It’s still entirely emotional, though.

Not this death penalty opponent. I believe the view you describe is very American. (By the way, “unilateral”? “One-sided”? Do you mean that death penalty supporters are generally against life in prison without parole, or am I missing something?)

As for GusNSpot, others have explained it to you. Your premise is completely nonsensical.

18

Perhaps I was wrong. My apologies.

Good point.

I said I could not speak for anyone else. I know that it is an unreasonable standard to expect everyone to comply with. I believe you are stretching what I said just a bit.

I wasn’t, I was just observing that; taking all of time into account; one person’s life is meaningless. Although, I suppose that is just as cogent an argument for letting everyone live.

It is a common anti-abortion argument, though I could have sworn I have heard it used in anti-DP arguments. Perhaps I was confusing one with the other; I’m not going to dig through the archives trying to find one example.

19

Wow. Thank you for fighting my ignorance. I was under the impression that unilateral was a synonym for unanimous.

20

I’m pretty sure it’s not cheaper. It might be cheaper if there were fewer appeals, but I can’t imagine that’s a good idea since it seems more innocent people would be sentenced to death if they had fewer options to appeal their sentences. Given that we know for a fact that innocent people DO get convicted of crimes on occasion, I’d rather they all still be alive. When someone innocent is sent to jail, you can free them. You can’t reverse the death penalty. This is bizarre to you?

So if you were sentenced to death, you’d be okay with it because most of the time, the system works? :dubious: Bullshit. Nothing personal, but that’s total bullshit. Maybe I’m misunderstanding you?

Given that capital punishment is only used in specific murder cases (there’s no rubric that I know of, and it’s never used on rapists), I don’t see how using it makes anybody safer. It does prevent specific murderers from killing again, but why only those specific murderers? And of course, if you argue it should be used more often it seems obvious that more innocent people will get caught up in it.