Try living in a country where the death peanlty is used as a repressional tool by the State, and see if you ever trust anyone with that power again. We abolished the death penalty here, and I’m glad. There have, in my lifetime, been many bastards I’ve wished had “got theirs”, but when I think about it cooly, DP never seems the answer. Killing a human being is doubly wrong when the state does it.
Here, there is a substantial minority advocating its return. I’ve changed my vote away from some politicians who, in all other respects, perfectly represent my interests, merely because they supported DP.
Oh, please. Like many people in this thread alone, I have different standards for the death penalty because you can’t take it back. My presence or not as a witness matters because I was making a point and because I was talking about MY support or lack thereof for the death penalty.
Guilt in this context referes to the provable connection between a person and a crime, not the objective, factual one; unless you are omniscient, you need to make decisions using the first meaning.
Of course you don’t care, which brings up what I feel is the real purpose of the death penalty; killing. Not for justice, not for revenge, not to defend society, but simply to kill for the joy of killing. THAT, in my opinion, is why the pro-death penalty people care so little for guilt or innocence or sanity or insanity; they are simply looking for an excuse to kill and feel self righteous about it. I really see little difference between the killer on the jury and the killer on the street, except street criminals do their own dirty work.
I think you’re living in a dream world if you think faking evidence and/or incompetence isn’t common. Dishonesty and corruption is everywhere, and I fail to see why law enforcement is magically protected.
Wrong, because the judicial system is what imposes the death penalty.
It’s the fault of the state, because it’s unnecessary.
I once saw a picture of a painting from back then; it showed a crowd gawking at a hanging getting pickpocketed or whatever they called it back then. No, it’s not a deterrent.
No, it is a short ethical leap from the ‘life without parole’ to ‘life without considering new evidence’. Not even a very short one if you ask me. Why would you want to preclude examining any new evidence? Or the examination of the old evidence in a new way?
It is absoultely certain that a death sentence is immoral because it is a moral absoulte that it is wrong to kill someone. “Thou shall not kill.” Four single syllable words that are pretty easy to understand. Morals deal with black and white. Ethics, deal with shades of grey. So we say it is OK to kill someone in self-defense against mortal peril, or defending another against mortal peril. But the peril has to be there first. If someone slaps you, it is wrong to pull out a gun and kill them. Your life wasn’t in danger. so you don’t get to kill them. If a killer is locked in jail, there is no ethical reason to kill him. There is no danger.
Again, if the justice system executes a person, then YOU have executed a person. You killed a person. Not for self-defense, because he was locked up in prision. So, why did you kill him?
You didn’t kill him to prevent crime. The Death Penalty does not prevent crime.
You didn’t kill him because you didn’t want to spend money on housing and feeding the killer for the rest of their lives. It costs more to execute him.
So why are you a killer?
Is it because killing is wrong and you want to send the message that killing is wrong by…killing someone?
This is a strawman. I am arguing that by murdering another, one forefeits the same right he violated, or an equitable amount of another right. This may sound like a nitpick, but its an important point of my argument; violating the rights of a criminal is very different from him forfeiting them himself.
Further, the example of “He hit me first!” implies a degree of revenge. As I stated, the death penalty has nothing to do with revenge, but a matter of correcting the injustice by an impartial (or as impartial as humanly possible) judge. This is precisely why Jimmy is not justified in hitting Mike back, even if he DID hit him first; he is hitting him back for revenge. However, an impartial chaparone/parent/teacher is enabled to be an arbiter and correct the injustice.
It is only hypocrisy inside of the strawman I point out above. I do not propose to violate any additional rights.
Returning to my thief example, by violating my right to my property he forfeits his right to property OR an equitable amount of another right (hence, it often results in a prison sentence). Are we being hypocrites by making him repay? Are we being hypocrites by putting him in jail? I fail to see how we are NOT hypocrites for seeing the thief as forfeiting an equitable amount of his rights for his deeds, but we ARE hypocrites for doing the same thing to a murderer. The only difference is the importance of the right violated; there is no right more fundamental to an individual than his right to life.
I do not dispute that prison is a terrible place. I understand that I would never want to be there; HOWEVER, imprisonment is a violation of the right to an individual’s freedom, not to an individual’s life. I argue that the individual’s right to life is more important and more fundamental than the individual’s right to freedom. Further, I argue that no finite forfeiture of the individual’s right to freedom is an equitable trade for his victim’s right to life.
Further, as stated before, prison is terrible, but that person still has an opportunity (even if greatly reduced) to laugh, see family, smile, read a book, etc. These are “luxuries” are COMPLETELY removed from his victim.
Further, I strongly disagree with your assertion that life in prison is far worse than death. Being that humanity is a self-aware, self-preserving species, inherently for most individuals, death is FAR more scary. Besides, if you’re religious, this person will face judgment for his crime in the afterlife; against any punishment that God will decree is FAR worse than what humans can do to him. If you’re note religious, he’s going to oblivion; I’d say not existing at all is a FAR worse punishment than existing in a miserable evironment.
This is also a strawman. The death penalty is about correcting an injustice (a forfeiture of a right in exchange for a violation of a right). It is not about somehow undoing what was done; humans are incapable of “undoing” something in the past. Implying that someone gets consolation from the perpetrator’s death implies a degree of revenge. While I, potentially as a member of the victim’s family, probably want revenge that should not weigh in on the decision as to whether or not the person is guilty. The person deserves death because he has forfeited his right to life, not because it will somehow console the family.
As for creating another grieving family, this is an appeal to emotion, and I have already addressed this above.
This is the same strawman as above. This is NOT about restoring anything, it is about correcting an injustice (NOT correcting/undoing the crime). The reason I brought up the thief is because this is an a clear cut case where the equitable forfeiture is obvious. The thief violated my right to property; thus he forfeits his right to property. What if he already spent some or all of the money? This is precisely where sentencing comes in. The arbiter determines the “equal” right that must be forfeit OR and equitable amount of another right that is forfeit. Hence, why thieves receive jail time; our society has agreed to a right to property of varying value is equitable to some period of time of the forfeiture of the right to freedom (eg, if a thief steals $10,000, then he goes to jail for 5 years, or whatever it is in your state).
The crux of my argument is this: an individual has a right to life, a given individual’s right to life is worth more than a finite sum of any or all other individual rights, thus the ONLY equitable forfeiture is the murderer’s right to life.
This is also a strawman. I do not assert that the death penalty is necessarily a deterrent. If it is, great; if it isn’t, it has no bearing on the equity of the punishment.
Can I borrow your brush? I need to paint my house.
Honestly, I should take offense at this assertion, especially in the context of my argument. I would take no joy in killing. In fact, it is precisely because I value life so highly that I support the death penalty.
I hold that no sum of one individual’s rights is equal, in ANY finite amount, with another individual’s right to life. There is no greater injustice that an individual can create than to violate the right to life of another individual. This is also why there is no other equitable forfeiture for a violation of this right than the very same right itself.
The judicial system establishes innocence or guilt. Thus, if guilt is established incorrectly, whether it is for a speeding ticket or murder, the judicial system has failed. This is regardless of how harmless or harmful the sentence is.
The nature of the crime determines the death penalty. It is based upon a set of previously agreed upon (by society) equitable forfeitures for crimes (eg, a speeder gets a fine, a burglar goes to jail for five years, a rapist goes to jail for 15 years, or what have you). As I have outlined in previous posts, I believe the ONLY equitable trade for the violation of another’s right to life is the forfeiture of his own; thus, as part of that list of equitable forfeitures should be the death penalty for murder.
This is non-sequitor. It does not follow that it is the state’s fault just because it is unnecessary. It is a direct consequence of a foolish decision by the criminal. If some moron decides to drink and drive and get himself killed, is it the state’s fault that his family is going to suffer because of his poor decision? Similarly, if a man commits a murder, prior to committing the murder, he is aware that if he is caught and found guilty, he is put to death. In both cases, he made a foolish decision which directly leads to his death and the emotional suffering of his family and loved ones. The state cannot bear responsibility for someone else’s stupid decision; however, it DOES bear responsibility to correct the injustice that a stupid decision may have caused.
Huh? Its absolutely immoral because of “Thou shall not kill”? If you’re going by the ten commandments… Exodus 20:13; NIV: “You shall not murder.”; NASB: “You shall not murder.”; NLT: “Do not murder”, etc. The only version I can find that says “Thou shalt not kill” is in King James, which is commonly accepted to be a poor translation and really mean “murder”. Other verses such as Genesis 9:6, and Exodus 21:12, clearly show that execution is the punishment for murder (among other crimes).
This is rather silly, of course SOMEONE has to carry out the execution, the state IS made up of people. This is like saying Coporal Johnson is responsible for the 14 people he personally shot and killed in a war. He killed them, but it was as an action of the state. He only holds responsibility if it was not in compliance with his orders. Similarly, if an executioner kills someone, he’s not acting as an individual, he’s acting on behalf of the state; he’s only responsible if he’s not acting in compliance with the governor/president/prime minister, etc.
It is not absolutely certain to everyone. It is absolutely certain to you and to others who believe like you. Others, who believe fervently is the same books that gave us those four words, have a different opinion.
I don’t believe it is morally wrong to execute a murderer, a violent rapist, or a guy who doesn’t signal a left turn in traffic.
I do believe it is morally wrong to execute an innocent man (maybe his bulb had burned out on the previous left turn).
I do believe it is morally wrong to execute a guilty man, while others guilty of the same crime do not receive the same punishment (only people who drive economy cars are executed for failing to signal; drivers of Lexii and BMWs are only castrated).
Because our judicial system cannot overcome those weaknesses, it should not execute people. However, the people who are guilty of crimes that would warrant execution* are not necessary, and I do not believe it is barbaric nor does it reflect poorly of soceity to remove them.
*Defining crimes that warrant execution would not be a task I would want to personally undertake, if the hurdles were removed and it got to that level. Sure, non-left turn signalers are an easy target, but how about non-right turn signalers? If yes to the latter, how about the people who don’t turn off their signals? Where does it end?
I believe your human rights cannot be stripped from you no matter how heinous the crime you comitted. I object just as vehemently to a violation of rights of a convicted murderer as I would for a law-abiding citizen. Human rights are not contingent upon whether or not you “deserve” them-- they are what is accorded to every human being.
A society is not judged by how it treats the people it likes, but by how it treats its “undesirables.”
Of course there’s an element of revenge. Executing a criminal in no way “makes things right.” No matter what punishment is meted out to an offender, things can never be made right again for the victims or their families.
Will the teacher hit Mike as punishment? By your reasoning, that’s the only way to mete out justice-- Mike should have a black eye, too.
Only the most important one.
No. We are seperating him from society because he has violated its rules and proven that he is dangerous to others. Hyporcrisy comes in when we do the same thing that we condemn: killing a killer. There is no hypocrisy in ordering a thief to pay restitution. It would be hypocritical if we told the victim to go into his house and take whatever they pleased.
You cannot make a murderer restore the life he took, and taking his does not fulfill that desire. A thief can pay restitution; a murderer cannot return what he destroyed. Nor can you squeeze blood from a turnip-- a good many thieves never repay what they stole because they can’t. They don’t have the assets to pay it back, and they only earn a couple of dollars a week working in the prison.
Back in Merrie Olde England, a thief used to have to stay in the prison until they not only paid back what they stole (or owed) but their room-and-board for staying in the prison.
Criminal justice is not about an “equitable trade”. If it was, there wouldn’t be offenders serving less than three years for the rape of a child. Executives who raid pension funds to pad their pockets while leaving old people in desperate poverty wouldn’t get a slap on the wrist. Drug offenses wouldn’t result in larger sentences than crimes which destroy lives.
If I were ever charged with murder and it looked likely I was going to be convicted, I would be the biggest asshole I could manage in court. I would laugh with delight at the description of my crime and do the most outrageously nasty things I could think of to get the jury to give me the death penalty. Everybody dies. I would much rather make it immediately than face forty years in hell. I can’t imagine much worse of a fate than dying of old age in a prison.
Huh. The idea of not existing doesn’t bother me in the slightest. After all, before I was born there were about four billion years in which I didn’t exist, and I didn’t mind. Secondly, you won’t *know * that you don’t exist, will you?
I simply don’t agree that human rights are forfeit in any situation.
I’m not talking about the exectioner. I’m talking about all members of a society that allows the death penalty. If you, Blaster Master, live in a state that executes people, then you, Blaster Master, have participated in that killing. The same applies to me or to anyone who lives in a state that does this. The state legislature writes the laws that impose the death penalty. Some states have ‘automatic death penalties’ for some crimes. (killing a police officer, multiple killings are two examples) Are you saying that we, as individual members of a society, are not responsible for the actions of the group? The executioner that acts in compliance with the Governor isn’t responsible, the state that elected the Govenor are in it as well.
If someone makes a choice to murder someone, this removes your ability to make your own decision on wether or not to kill someone. You say you value life. That you hold life sacred. Why can’t you hold sacred, your ability to choose? I presume that you have never made the choice to kill a person. I also presume that you hold your ability to make moral decisions to a high degree of importance. Do you want people to make moral decisions for you? Do you want someone, or a group of people, to decide that you will kill someone? And that you will make this choice, because the person that will be killed, did it first?
Are you absolutely sure you meant to argue that somebody is absolved of responsibility for their killing of someone else, provided the state ordered them to do it?
Well obviously the end result of the death penalty is to be killed. Kinda goes hand in hand. But, no rational person enjoys killing.
Yes, dishonesty and corruption is everywhere. But if it were as common as you’re making it out to be in the justice system involving those on death row, it would be exposed immediately. Too many people are watching.
Didn’t we already smack the inanity of this statement to the ground and grind it under out bootheels? Living in a state that executes people (or even like NY, which can impose a death penalty but has yet to use it) does not mean one has participated in the killing. Many, many people actively choose to stay and fight the DP. They’re killing people? Or would you prefer that the states polarize into all pro-DP or all anti-DP? Boy, that would really change things.
I will say that. Depending on your flashpoint on any issue, you can fight for it tooth and nail. It does not make one complicit if the majority rules against you. Foolishness like this leads people to believe it is justified to kill abortion doctors. Society won’t stop you, so it is up to me to stop you!
Nice twist of my words :rolleyes:. I said they’re absolved, provided he is acting on behalf of the state (as an agent of the state such as asoldier, police officer, executioner, etc.). Would you suggest they shouldn’t?
Otherwise, every soldier can be held responsible for every person he kills, even though he is acting in the interest and under orders of the state; then, officers become crime lords. These orders are passed down through ranks in accordance with the procedures of our laws based on our social contract. If these people weren’t protected, imagine the frivilous lawsuits against soldiers who are just doing their jobs.
Otherwise, every police officer who kills (or otherwise does something "immoral) in the line of duty according to his regulations becomes personally responsible; police chiefs and sherrifs become crime lords. These regulations are in accordance with our laws and based on our social contract.
The problem is when these agents act NOT in accordance with the law, regulations, orders, etc. THAT is when they’re personally responsible, because then they are no longer acting on behalf of the state, but as an individual.
How is an executioner any different from either of the above cases? They ONLY kill when an order has been signed by the governor after being sentenced by a jury and having numerous chances for appeal. ALL of this is in accordance with our laws, traditions, and social contract. If his JOB is to be the guy that pulls that switch, or injects the syringe, as long as he does it in accordance with those laws and procedures, it is the state’s responsibility.
Imagine a situation like this. A bombing is ordered on a military target, in the process someone they intended to kill, dies. Oh no, those soldiers killed someone, so the family of the dead person sues the state… fine. But those soldiers are responsible too?! Each soldier who was part of the mission, their commanding officer, his commanding officer, etc. ALL get put on trial for murder, and get civil suits pressed against them. Does THAT make a lick of sense?
Image another situation. There’s a bank robbery in progress, and the suspects are heavily armed and shooting at police officers on their way out with the cash. The police officers, in accordance with regulation and the law, discharge their firearms to take down these suspects to attempt to protect the public. Oh no, one of the suspects gets shot and dies. So maybe the suspects family decide to sue the state… fine. But if these officers are responsible too, every officer on the scene gets screened to determine who was responsible for the shot that caused the fatal wound. The officer in charge of the scene is responsible. Many of them have suits pressed against them. Does THAT make sense?
Imagine another situation. A man is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of capital murder in a court of law and is sentenced to death. He gets numerous appeals, all of which do not result in his release (either aren’t enough to get a new trial, or ARE they and the jury fails to find a different verdict). The governor signs the order for his execution. He gets lethally injected. The family doesn’t believe in the death penalty and sues the state… fine. But now the executioner is responsible? The governor, the judge, the jury, they all get sued too? Does that make sense?
But if you are pro death penalty, then you most certainly are part of it aren’t you? If you had two choices for governor and you chose the pro-death penalty candidate over the anit-death penalty candidate. Then you still are not compliant in death?
As to what tactics this leads to, well that is wild speculation on your part and not practical in this discussion.
The point is, that some people are tryting to say it is the murderer’s fault he is being executed. That he, gave up his rights, when he committed a crime. Hummm…
All men are created equal and they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among those being life, liberty and the persuit of happiness.
So the killers ‘rights’ do not come from you, but you feel you can remove them, no, that the killer removes their rights from themselves.
Be honest, it is not the criminal who gives up his right to be alive, but the state, and by extension the citizens of the state, that take away his right to be alive.
The arguement that you can not do anything but kill the murderer is a false one. The arguement that “killer made us do this” is a false one.
Your choices are your own. You choose to kill someone, who is not a threat. It is not self-defense, it is not defending another, it is not killing someone in a war. It is a very low ethical standard to kill someone. And if the State can lower the standard to kill someone, why can’t the individual members, lower their standards?
Which seems to suggest that the same people who talked about how we all have an inalienable right to life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness also thought that the state could kill you, lock you up, or take your stuff if it did it legally.
The state can do a whole bunch of stuff that the individual can’t…that’s the whole concept of “sovereignty”. The state can lock me up, it can make me pay it, it can make me fight for it, it can tell me what I’m not allowed to eat, drink, and smoke, it can tell me what I can sell to you, how I can sell it, and what promises I have to make you if you buy it, it can tell me I can’t dump stuff in the river, even the part of the river I own, it can make me pay my employees a certain amount and not let them work over a certain length of time. It can do all that, and more, because it’s the state.
