By “in cold blood” I mean that you are intentionally taking the life of someone who is not a direct, imminent threat to you. Killing is not always murder-- if someone is trying to kill you, you are perfectly justified in taking that person’s life if it’s necesssary to save your own. You are not, however, justified in killing that person later-- if he gets away, you can’t go hunt him down and kill him.
Do you support imprisonment for all murders, or only for murders that clearly indicate that they want to be in jail?
Oh, come on.
The point that I’m trying to make is that, as a functioning society, there are things that individuals cannot do, but that the government can do (after due process). While it’s immoral for me to hack into your bank and steal money from you, the government can seize money from you. If it couldn’t, we wouldn’t be able to have a functioning society. The same goes for imprisonment and execution. I don’t understand why you draw the line at execution (Again, the specific argument that I’m debating is that “it’s hypocritical to say that murder is wrong, but to also execute criminals for murder.” Please don’t bring in any of the other arguments, as I’m pretty much in agreement with you on them.)
As I see it, it’s not the same thing at all. Someone needs to pay for the military and cops and roads; the predators among us need to be restrained; we don’t need to execute anyone. If we are in a position to execute someone, we’ve got them; we don’t need to kill them.
I don’t see a moral argument as absolutely unassailable. Morality is also conditional. I think everyone agrees that if the “condition” is one of war a soldier is justified in killing.
It can be argued that the soldier is justified because the enemy is trying to kill him (or her) but that is a reciprocal condition. Soldiers of both sides are similarly “innocent” (my side) or “guilty” (their side).
Many people who hold that there is a fixed moral code will defend the Founding Fathers, such as Jefferson and Washington, owning slaves on the grounds that they were justified according to the mores of the society at the time.
I also oppose the death penalty mostly because it is ineffective. If the death penalty worked Texas shouldn’t have to execute people one after another.
Because murder is inherently* immoral*, where imprisonment or fines are not. I believe it’s wrong to do something immora to punish someone. I see it the same as raping a rapist-- you’re doing something wrong to them as a punishment.
It matters not what the offender did. Stooping to immorality as a means of punishment reflects poorly on us as a civilization.
That’s a good argument against the DP. However, it’s not the one that I was addressing.
You asked “why draw the line at execution”, instead of taxes; that’s my answer.
Well then, I think that we’re at an impasse. I would say that all of these things (stealing, imprisonment, execution) are immoral for an individual to do with no justification, but OK for the government to do after due process. Therefore, I don’t see how anybody can say that it’s hypocritical to allow the government to use any of them as an instrument of justice, while not allowing citizent to do them willy-nilly.
The problems with your rape analogy are 1.) Who would you get to carry out the punishment? and 2.) Most would consider it cruel and unusual. (I understand that some consider the DP to be C&U, but I don’t feel like getting into that debate right now.)
I was asking specifically about the alledged hypocracy of allowing the government to do something that individuals cannot chose to do on their own.
But I think that this horse has stopped breathing.
I suppose keeping him alive would serve as a moral example that we as a society will not bring ourselves down to the same level as these murderers. Of course, the pro-DP side is going to argue that it’s morally correct to kill him because he deserves it or serves as an example. Once we get into morals instead of factual issues it’s pretty pointless to argue because opinions on issues like this are usually quite fixed.
In my honest opinion, if Manson were released today I don’t think he’d hurt a fly. So the only reason to keep him behind bars is out of a sense of retribution or “justice.” A good argument could be made that he deserves to rot in prison forever regardless of whether he’d so anything like that again. But I don’t think society is any safer at this point because Charlie Manson is locked up.