Why I oppose the death penalty

[Blaster_Master]

@Lissa

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.”

You’re arguing the same strawman. I didn’t say the rights are stripped away, I said the criminal forfeits his rights. There’s a BIG difference there.

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.

Again, another strawman. I never said executing the criminal makes things right, I said it corrects an injustice. I also disagree that an element of revenge must exist in justice. In fact, I would go so far as to say if there is revenge, it probably isn’t just.

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.

I would say that would be just; HOWEVER, it would still be foolish of the teacher. As I said before, one forfeits the same right OR an equitable amount of another right. Because the teacher is NOT trying to instill violence, the teacher will likely decide that an equitable forfeiture of another right (eg, time out, extra busywork, etc.) is still just AND doesn’t teach a bad lesson.

However, this example (not mine, mind you) isn’t a great analogy because you’d probably argue that the execution itself is violence. This is true; however, while a lesser punishment may teach a lesson, it wouldn’t be just. Hence, the only just action is the execution.

Only the most important one.

As long as you’re arguing against that strawman of yours.

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.

Someone is seperated from society as punishment because it is just, any safety to society is a pleasant side-effect. The latter part is an argument against the same strawman, which I’ve already addressed above.

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.

How many times do I have to say that justice isn’t about making things RIGHT its about correcting the injustice? The thief pays restituion because it is the just thing to do. It still doesn’t correct the situation; the victim still feels violated, still was distressed. And it is also precisely because the thief likely cannot pay restitution that he gets a different, but equitable, forfeiture: jailtime.

I have long supported a system similar to Merrie Old England, such that prisons are not an economic burden on society, and also thieves and such to ALSO pay restitution. However, I would only support that in a case where the crime does not warrant the death penalty.

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.

Okay, I honestly don’t undestand this part of your argument at all. Why would a rape of a child only get three years? Further, the fact that the drug offenses are currently over punished doesn’t make that punishment just. The justice of other punishments has no bearing on the justice of the death penalty.

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.

I can imagine plenty worse fates. By your logic, its more humane to execute someone than it is to leave them in jail for a long period of time. How many years becomes harsher than just dying young? If a guy goes to jail for 50 years for armed robbery, he probably won’t outlive that sentence, why not just execute him and get it over with? What about 20 years for rape, should we kill him? What about 30 days for domestic abuse? Where do you draw that line? How long in jail is worse than just plain dying and getting it over with?

Besides, all of that is moot anyway. The point isn’t about which is harsher, the point is about which is most equitable.

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?

Well, my personal religious beliefs are irrelevant. My point was that it doesn’t MATTER what you believe

I simply don’t agree that human rights are forfeit in any situation.

Then what do you propose justice is? I’d already defined it earlier based on m-w.com, specifically definition 1a. How do we determine merited awards and punishments? Based on rights. I have argued, which you have still not addressed, that the only fair adjustment is, essentially the “eye for an eye” concept (minus the revenge factor, which I’ve ALSO previously discussed). Thus, if I violate another’s right, the fair punishment is a forfeiture of that right same right. Sometimes that same right is not possible, or difficult to judge, thus we substitute with an equitable amount of another right (easiest to quantify being property and freedom.

As an American citizen, I have a RIGHT to vote, to freedom, to property, to free speech, to life, etc. If these are never forfeited, then how is it moral to serve justice by revoking someone’s right to vote, locking them up, fining them, censuring them. How else would you propose we serve justice if we never revoke these rights as punishment?

[Blaster_Master]

@Zebra

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.

I’m sorry, I misunderstood. As a members of society, we do bear a degree of responsibility. Personally, I am comfortable with that, because I happen to agree that the Death Penalty is just. In fact, I would not be comfortable if I thought a heinous act was not punished justly. For instance, I was completely comfortable with the DC Sniper receiving the Death penalty, being guilty of such a crime, I believe it is a just punishment. Though I was not personally angry with him (he never did anything to me), nor do did I personally seek revenge, as a member of society, he violated our laws and our rights. Thus, I bear no personal responsibility, but I do share the burden of responsibility as being a member of society.

[Blaster_Master]

@Zebra

I disagree. This is not a strawman.

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?

But we do not have the right to choose whatever we want. We can only choose as far as the rights of others do not restrict us. Further, as a member of society, we defer a number of choices to our government. Would you prefer to have to vote on EVERY law that’s proposed? What about tough decisions like going to war, using nuclear weapons, signing treaties? On a local scale, do you want to make decisions about who fixes the pothole on main street, and which candidate for the new school being built is the best to be principal? This is the whole point of representative government.
As a member of society, we defer tough (or merely those of which we’re illinformed) decisions to our government. I have to display a certain amount of trust that the courts have a high accuracy rate and a low false-positive rate. I have to trust that when they sentence a guilty man to death, that they are in the best decision, and most informed to decide his guilt and sentence. I am comfortable with that. In fact, I would be LESS comfortable if I had a hand in the decision, precisely because I would be illinformed.

[D_Odds]

@Zebra

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?

No, unless your only criteria for electing a governor is his/her support of the DP. My candidate selection is much more nuanced than any single issue. And if I don’t support the governor and don’t vote for him/her and still live in the state, am I still compliant? You blame the entire state, regardless of their DP stance, regardless of any measures they take to change the system and abolish the DP.

As to what tactics this leads to, well that is wild speculation on your part and not practical in this discussion.

No, it’s not. It is exactly why people bomb abortion clinics and kill abortion doctors.

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.

Words written by men. By no means an absolute. Government defines “unalienable” rights and government can change the definition. In the US, that government is of, by and for the people, so the exact definition of these rights can be decided by the people. And they have. Not surprisingly it varies from person to person, state to state, and region to region.

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.

Yep.

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?

I, personally, am not saying that.

Like you, I do not support the DP. We differ in that, ethically, I have no problem with giving the state the power to execute certain criminals. However, I have great issue with the procedures used to issue the death penalty. I’m debating your stance because your arguments go way too far. You state, “I’m talking about all members of a society that allows the death penalty.” This is, quite simply, an untrue statement.

[D_Odds]

Bah! I can spell, really I can…

unalienable s/b inalienable

[Lissa]

@Blaster Master

You’re arguing the same strawman. I didn’t say the rights are stripped away, I said the criminal forfeits his rights. There’s a BIG difference there.

Forfeited, stripped away-- whatever. I don’t see that big of a difference, especially when the results are the same. I simply do not believe that you CAN forfeit your human rights, regardless of your behavior. Again, it is not for the criminal’s sake, but for OUR sake as a society-- we should be better people than to sink to that level.

Again, another strawman. I never said executing the criminal makes things right, I said it corrects an injustice. I also disagree that an element of revenge must exist in justice. In fact, I would go so far as to say if there is revenge, it probably isn’t just.

And I have yet to see how adding to the body count “corrects” anything. Call it what you will, I still don’t buy it.

Secondly, I do believe that there is an element of revenge to our justice system. Why else would we have victim impact statements before sentencing? The jury has already decided that the criminal is guilty of crimes A, B, and C. What is the purpose of having the victim or their families describe the pain these acts caused? The victims want the jury/judge to keep their anguish in mind when deciding the sentence.

I would say that would be just; HOWEVER, it would still be foolish of the teacher. As I said before, one forfeits the same right OR an equitable amount of another right. Because the teacher is NOT trying to instill violence, the teacher will likely decide that an equitable forfeiture of another right (eg, time out, extra busywork, etc.) is still just AND doesn’t teach a bad lesson.

And if we sentence a murderer to live in prison (a permenant “time out” including making license plates or whatnot) how is justice not served? What about the “bad lessons” that the death penalty teaches-- that human life is not truly sacrosanct, that murder is okay in some circumstances?

However, this example (not mine, mind you) isn’t a great analogy because you’d probably argue that the execution itself is violence. This is true; however, while a lesser punishment may teach a lesson, it wouldn’t be just. Hence, the only just action is the execution.

Just by whose standards? The only time I consider it acceptable to take a human life is if I am in imminent danger of being killed, in which case it is perfectly reasonable to use deadly force in self defense. I certainly don’t consider it “just” to kill someone, regardless of what they have done. In other words, their actions do not excuse mine.

How many times do I have to say that justice isn’t about making things RIGHT its about correcting the injustice?

And I don’t see your distinction.

The thief pays restituion because it is the just thing to do.

No, he pays restitution because he is forced to do so by the state. Believe me, most of them are not operating under such lofty concepts as “doing the right thing,” or their definition of the* right thing* varies greatly from others’.

It still doesn’t correct the situation; the victim still feels violated, still was distressed. And it is also precisely because the thief likely cannot pay restitution that he gets a different, but equitable, forfeiture: jailtime.

Even if the thief could immediately pay back what he stole, he’d still get jailtime because that’s how our system is designed. Society gets it’s “revenge” on the criminal by incarcerating them. It’s not to teach others a lesson. It’s not to prevent crime by example. It’s not even to try to rehabilitate the offender (though efforts to that end are becomming more popular). It’s to* punish.* There is no efforts toward creating an ephemeral balance-- that the sentence somehow equalled the crime comitted.

I have long supported a system similar to Merrie Old England, such that prisons are not an economic burden on society, and also thieves and such to ALSO pay restitution. However, I would only support that in a case where the crime does not warrant the death penalty.

I can give you about a thousand reasons why that won’t work, but that’s another thread.

Okay, I honestly don’t undestand this part of your argument at all. Why would a rape of a child only get three years?

Because that’s the way it is. Happens every day.

Sex crimes are extremely difficult to prove, especially if the victim is a child. Prosecutors are often placed in the position of trying to get at least some prison time out of the offender. They often end up pleading the defendant down to GSI or some more “minor” offense which has a lesser sentence. The prison in which my husband works has 2,800 inmates, about half of which are sex offenders. The avgerage sentence is nine months.

Further, the fact that the drug offenses are currently over punished doesn’t make that punishment just. The justice of other punishments has no bearing on the justice of the death penalty.

I disagree. You can’t take one segment of the justice system and claim that it’s a seperate issue.

I can imagine plenty worse fates. By your logic, its more humane to execute someone than it is to leave them in jail for a long period of time. How many years becomes harsher than just dying young? If a guy goes to jail for 50 years for armed robbery, he probably won’t outlive that sentence, why not just execute him and get it over with? What about 20 years for rape, should we kill him? What about 30 days for domestic abuse? Where do you draw that line? How long in jail is worse than just plain dying and getting it over with?

Spending the rest of your life behind bars and dying in prison is a worse fate than a needle and gurney.

Besides, all of that is moot anyway. The point isn’t about which is harsher, the point is about which is most equitable.

But our entire justice system is not about “what is equitable.” If it was, crimes which destroy a person’s life like rape or molestation would get harsher sentences than victimless crimes like drug abuse.

Well, my personal religious beliefs are irrelevant. My point was that it doesn’t MATTER what you believe

Then why bring it up in the first place?

Then what do you propose justice is? I’d already defined it earlier based on m-w.com, specifically definition 1a. How do we determine merited awards and punishments? Based on rights. I have argued, which you have still not addressed, that the only fair adjustment is, essentially the “eye for an eye” concept (minus the revenge factor, which I’ve ALSO previously discussed). Thus, if I violate another’s right, the fair punishment is a forfeiture of that right same right. Sometimes that same right is not possible, or difficult to judge, thus we substitute with an equitable amount of another right (easiest to quantify being property and freedom.

We cannot go by “an eye for an eye”, which would entail doing some pretty horrible things in many cases. Nor does it apply in many crimes. For example, what “eye” should we take for a drug abuser? Or for someone convicted of vehicular manslaughter? (Do we run over a guy who hit a child while speeding?)

I consider it perfectly just punishment that someone who intentionally took a human life should spend the rest of their life behind bars.

As an American citizen, I have a RIGHT to vote, to freedom, to property, to free speech, to life, etc. If these are never forfeited, then how is it moral to serve justice by revoking someone’s right to vote, locking them up, fining them, censuring them. How else would you propose we serve justice if we never revoke these rights as punishment?

Human rights are different than civil rights.

[Lissa]

@Captain Amazing

Although, we also imprison people who kidnap other people and forcibly hold them against their will.

Cute.

Kidnapping is usually a charge which is added to other charges, ie. one count of rape, one count of B&E, one count of kidnapping, etc. In the prison in which my husband works, he doesn’t have a single inmate incarcerated for kidnapping alone.

A kidnapping doesn’t usually just involve forcing a person to another location against their will. The victim is usually assaulted or threatened with a weapon (crimes in and of themselves.)

[Zebra]

@Blaster Master

But we do not have the right to choose whatever we want. We can only choose as far as the rights of others do not restrict us. Further, as a member of society, we defer a number of choices to our government. Would you prefer to have to vote on EVERY law that’s proposed? What about tough decisions like going to war, using nuclear weapons, signing treaties? On a local scale, do you want to make decisions about who fixes the pothole on main street, and which candidate for the new school being built is the best to be principal? This is the whole point of representative government.
As a member of society, we defer tough (or merely those of which we’re illinformed) decisions to our government. I have to display a certain amount of trust that the courts have a high accuracy rate and a low false-positive rate. I have to trust that when they sentence a guilty man to death, that they are in the best decision, and most informed to decide his guilt and sentence. I am comfortable with that. In fact, I would be LESS comfortable if I had a hand in the decision, precisely because I would be illinformed.

Blaster Master, I just want to hear you say, it is your choice to kill the criminal. It’s not the ‘them’, ‘the government’, ‘the justice system’, it is you, Blaster Master, that is making that choice. That is all I’m driving at here.

[Zebra]

D_Odds,

I also know people, who, when their state executes a person, they go and confess their crime and seek absoultion. They feel responsible for the things that society does as a group even though they oppose the death penalty. There are other people who live ‘outiside’ society like the Amish. They are not into violence either. Not every strict moral person is a future abortion bomber. There are plenty of ways a person can oppose the government and not become a criminal.
The words in the Declaration of Independence were written by man, true, but those men were pretty smart guys and they and the stuff they wrote, set the foundation for our society including our judicial system.

[D_Odds]

@Zebra

D_Odds,

I also know people, who, when their state executes a person, they go and confess their crime and seek absoultion. They feel responsible for the things that society does as a group even though they oppose the death penalty. There are other people who live ‘outiside’ society like the Amish. They are not into violence either. Not every strict moral person is a future abortion bomber. There are plenty of ways a person can oppose the government and not become a criminal.

Confess their crime to whom, the District Attorney? Do they enjoy seeing him/her laugh? To their local priest / reverend / rabbi / iman / shock jock? That’s a personal hang up, as is feeling that you are personally responsible for every policy regardless of your position on the policy.

@Zebra

The words in the Declaration of Independence were written by man, true, but those men were pretty smart guys and they and the stuff they wrote, set the foundation for our society including our judicial system.

Not saying they weren’t. I said that the “inalienable” rights are not truly inalienable (else the whole world would adopt them) and always being redefined (all men are created equal…ooh, let’s expand that to include women and blacks). Your definition of inalienable rights says that execution violates these rights. The high court of the land disagrees at this point in time. It also upheld, at one point, that a black man was not entitled to the rights granted in the constitution. If enough people and the sentiment of the land change, the high court can change its decisions, and maybe it will side with you. Right or wrong ethically (and remember, on the ethical question, we disagree), currently the will of the people is that execution is an appropriate sentence for some crimes, and that it is not in violation of the constitution. This is not to say, however, the will of the people is always just. Personally, I do not have a problem with the execution of people for certain crimes. My opposition comes from the ability of the system to wrongly convict people and of the system to disproportionately apply the DP to certain segments of society, two hurdles which I do not see being overcome.

[calm_kiwi]

@ParentalAdvisory

Yes, there are some bad seeds in the justice system. No one can deny that.

“We” (the societal we) should be better then any of our bad seeds. “We” should have developed a society that has become better then our worst element.

Our worst citizens kill people. They have proven that they are not fit to live with us. By killing them we prove we are no better. How is this as a motto for humanity? “Kill someone…we kill you”.

Lock them up forever. Killing them makes society no better then them. “If you kill someone we WILL kill you”.

At the end of the day life in a cell is a much greater punishment.

[Malacandra]

@The Chao Goes Mu

4. The very notion of the bloodlust that stems from seeking justice for a “wrong” seems to have it’s roots in Christianity of making a judgement for a “sin” and punishing that person by seeing that they meet their maker for judgement sooner than later. A law based on religion seems to defy separation of Church and State. (This is my opinion, not fact. I am not picking on Christianity, but it is the dominant religion in our country and so many laws are based on it’s tenets. )

I’m surprised this one has gone unchallenged for so long. Capital punishment for crime has been around far longer than Christianity, and if you go back to Moses you find that there are stipulations for dealing with sins - sacrifices and so forth - and stipulations for dealing with crimes - fines, mutilations and death. Sin is to be dealt with by wiping it out so the offender can be put back on track with God. Crime is to be punished. Nobody hung (stoned, etc) murderers because they were sinners but because they were criminals; and there’s not a Biblical verse I can call to mind that even suggests this “send him to God for judgment” notion.

It’s worth noting that the Mosaic “eye for an eye” code specified what the offender had to give up by way of restitution; not what the complainant was obliged to demand. And this put a lid on the human impulse to take an eye, an arm, a leg, a first-born son and the village burned to ashes, for an eye.

Ghandi once sagely remarked “An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind”; but it’s truer to say that an eye for an eye leaves a proportion of the world one-eyed, sadder and wiser, and the rest of the world significantly more careful around other people’s eyes.

[Lissa]

@Malacandra

Ghandi once sagely remarked “An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind”; but it’s truer to say that an eye for an eye leaves a proportion of the world one-eyed, sadder and wiser, and the rest of the world significantly more careful around other people’s eyes.

I don’t agree. No one ever commits a crime with the consequences in mind. Either they think they’ll get away with it, or the jury will agree with their justification, or they just don’t stop to consider what might happen if they’re caught.

People don’t take what happened to others as the examples we would wish. Everyone thinks their circumstances are different, and almost everyone can justify their actions to themselves. (Nobody ever thinks they’re a bad person.)

Secondly, there is a significant number of people in the world who lack empathy. Empathy is not an innate part of being a human-- it’s something that’s taught in early childhood, and if that developmental stage is neglected, the person can end up as someone who sincerely doesn’t understand why they should care if they hurt others as long as they got what they wanted. (Not all of these people are criminals, mind you. People lacking empathy can be perfectly law-abiding.)

Let me give you an example of a conversation my husband had with an inmate in his prison. The inmate had just been put in segregation for beating another inmate who had stolen a pair of shoes from him.

“Thieves should be beaten,” the inmate declared to Hubby in righteous indignation. “He deserved what he got for stealing from me.”

“Aren’t you in here for burglary?” Hubby asked.

“Yeah. So?”

“Well, should the people from who you stole get to beat you?”

“No! Of course not!” the inmate said, outraged by the very idea.

Try as he might, Hubby could not get the inmate to understand that others had the same anger that he had when he was victimized. The inmate could not understand why others’ feelings should be a consideration.

So, no, I don’t think we would be more careful around other peoples’ “eyes.” We always have an excuse for what we do that seems perfectly valid to us.

[Rucksinator]

@Lissa

How can we have moral superiority in this case? I think it’s hypocritical to say that murder is wrong, and then turn around and do it ourselves, albeit in a comfortably ceremonial fashion.

Isn’t kidnapping morally wrong? Isn’t stealing morally wrong? If so, then state-sanctioned stealing (fines) and state-sanctioned kidnapping (imprisonment) are just as morally wrong as state-sanctioned murder (execution.)

[Lissa]

@Rucksinator

Isn’t kidnapping morally wrong? Isn’t stealing morally wrong? If so, then state-sanctioned stealing (fines) and state-sanctioned kidnapping (imprisonment) are just as morally wrong as state-sanctioned murder (execution.)

Kidnapping and stealing are not absolutes. If I drag an unwilling person from a burning building, is that “kidnapping?” If I tackle a person who is in a psychotic episode to keep him from hurting himself, is that “kidnapping?”

Is the government “stealing” from me when they force me to pay taxes. Is an injured person “stealing” from the person who injured him if he sues?

Murder is the intentional killing of a human being in cold blood. Not a lot of grey area there.

[Rucksinator]

@Lissa

Kidnapping and stealing are not absolutes. If I drag an unwilling person from a burning building, is that “kidnapping?” If I tackle a person who is in a psychotic episode to keep him from hurting himself, is that “kidnapping?”

Is the government “stealing” from me when they force me to pay taxes. Is an injured person “stealing” from the person who injured him if he sues?

Murder is the intentional killing of a human being in cold blood. Not a lot of grey area there.

Perhaps I’m daft (but I promise it’s not intentional), but I don’t understand your “absolutes” argument.

Please allow me to be more direct: You say that it’s hypocritical to say that murder is wrong while allowing the government to execute criminals. This is the specific point that I’m debating.

I think that we all agree that it would be morally wrong for me to lock someone up in the 10x10 cage that I have in my basement.* However, you seem to feel that it’s OK for the government to do the exact same thing. Why is execution hypocritical while imprisonment is not?

• I don’t really have a 10x10 cage in my basement.

[Lissa]

@Rucksinator

Perhaps I’m daft (but I promise it’s not intentional), but I don’t understand your “absolutes” argument.

Please allow me to be more direct: You say that it’s hypocritical to say that murder is wrong while allowing the government to execute criminals. This is the specific point that I’m debating.

I think that we all agree that it would be morally wrong for me to lock someone up in the 10x10 cage that I have in my basement.* However, you seem to feel that it’s OK for the government to do the exact same thing. Why is execution hypocritical while imprisonment is not?

• I don’t really have a 10x10 cage in my basement.

Locking someone up or restricting their freedom is not, in and of itself, inherently immoral. There are many circumstances where it is not only excusable, but laudable. (Such as when a person is going to harm themselves or others.)

Killing a human being in cold blood is inherently immoral, in and of itself. You cannot take a human life in cold blood without violating the human rights of the person executed. There are no circumstances in which taking a human life in cold blood is excusable or laudable.

The hypocrisy, as I see it, comes in when we do something immoral to punish those who have committed immoral acts, like raping a rapist or killing someone who has killed. Since I do not see incarceration as being immoral, I cannot agree to your analogy.

[Rucksinator]

[QUOTE=Lissa]

There are no circumstances in which taking a human life in cold blood is excusable or laudable.
QUOTE]
So I take it you’re against euthanasia? I’m not sure what you mean by “in cold blood”, but I think that it means that I’m not allowed to come up with any hypothetical situations, like you are allowed to for imprisoning or taking money from someone.

[Fear_Itself]

@Rucksinator

So I take it you’re against euthanasia? I’m not sure what you mean by “in cold blood”, but I think that it means that I’m not allowed to come up with any hypothetical situations, like you are allowed to for imprisoning or taking money from someone.

I would think so. Euthanasia is not the same as assisted suicide.

[Lissa]

@Fear Itself

I would think so. Euthanasia is not the same as assisted suicide.

Exactly. I support assisted suicide as long as the person is able to clearly indicate that they want to die.