Take exception all you like. Perhaps your outrage would be better directed at their uncivilised behaviour than at my pointing it out.
I’m pro-choice, obviously. Again, civilised.
You made the claim that the US was barbaric for capital punishment.
Smapti responded that there was nothing barbaric about executing someone who deserved to die.
You responded that “the only states that agree with him are China, Iran, Iraq, much of Africa, and the rest of the developing and undeveloped world.”
Me, noting that India is included in your statement, was just pointing out the overwhelming majority of the world agrees with Smapti. Just saying is all.
There’s your problem. They don’t actually need to die. There is this system whereupon people are locked up in cells for committing crimes. It’s called prison. When people are put in prison, they don’t die. They serve their punishment and if and when new evidence shows they were not guilty, they get released. Most countries use such a system, even for murderers. You really should research it.
So you wish to prevent a hypothetical injustice by committing a certain injustice?
There are crimes for which prison is an insufficient punishment. The only fitting penalty for certain crimes is the sudden and complete end of one’s existence.
Pjen, this is silly stuff. Maybe lethal injection is too difficult and error-prone to do properly. In that case, we could easily resort to just shooting them, which is essentially foolproof.
There are legitimate arguments against the death penalty, which revolve around the risk of killing innocent people. For what it’s worth, while I support the death penalty for treason and other crimes against the state, I lean against using it for common criminals. This isn’t one of those good arguments, though.
So India contains the majority of World population, and everyone in India supports the death penalty?
Justice.
As an aside, it’s unclear to me why what Europe banning things ‘by constitutional decision’ is supposed to be relevant either to morality, or to how the United States is supposed to design their laws. I don’t live in Europe, and I couldn’t care less about their constitutional decisions. (Not every European, of course, agrees with the decisions of their governments, about the death penalty or anything else, so ‘Europe’ needs some qualification here).
I find you stance arrogant in the extreme even though I am pro-choice and anti-death penalty like you though maybe not for the same reasons. I find nothing uncivilized or barbaric about killing a man who raped, shot and tortured a teenage girl and then buried her alive as she begged for life. The guy is a monster in my book and the world is better off without him. That said, the death penalty is ineffective as a deterrent, too often is used on innocent men due to the imperfections in our justice system, and is more expensive than life imprisonment to boot; it should be eliminated. But you and Pjen stand on your high horse and condemn as lacking morality a practice that is accepted by the majority of humanity and as been used for our entire history. How arrogant, how fundamentalist, how judgmental! Who the hell are you and what makes you so special that you get to judge the world majority in their desire to execute men guilty of horrific crimes while at the same time have such callous disregard for the unborn millions that are killed every year? Your arguments have not convinced me of anything and I am on your side!
In your opinion, but thankfully not in everyone’s. For those of us with more compassionate natures, the barbaric manner in which Oklahoma murdered this individual will turn more people in my direction than yours.
No. If you think that imprisoning a murderer for life is an injustice, then there’s no debating with you, frankly.
With the exception of Japan, they are not advanced western nations with a system of rule of law and Liberal Democratic traditions. I would rather support the general moral standing of European nations together with much of the old commonwealth. If you are happier to be grouped with such countries, then that is fine. I would not choose to assume their moral compass.
No. But the US, China, Iran, Iraq, much of Africa, the rest of the developing and undeveloped world (including India) constitutes the majority of people in the world. Of course we do not know how the people in those countries feel about capital punishment individually, but I object to Pjen and others saying that the overwhelming majority of the world is barbaric. Is this clear now?
I’m pro-life and (in principle) pro-death penalty, though in practice I’d probably be most comfortable reserving it for political crimes. I agree with this about 100%, though.
Oklahoma didn’t “murder” anyone.
1/ I get to choose who to ally myself with personally. I do not ally myself with death-making states.
2/ who mentioned ‘unborn millions’?
What was the name of that law? You know the one, where all debates end up? Be careful where you set your moral compass because Europe is not all lily white.
What do we do in the meantime? We could stay all executions where there is a question about their guilt. Might drop executions by 90%, would you be OK with that?
I’ll also point out that “no question” is a very high hurdle, an expensive hurdle, and you could probably lock these guys away for life in SuperMax for a lower cost, and reduce your collateral damage to 0, while maintaining the concept of preventing any further loss of life from these monsters.
It is an injustice when a man who has committed murder is allowed to continue to live. Every breath he is allowed to take is an injustice against his victim, to the victim’s family, and to the entire society that he has attacked.
Much the same way that the Taliban did not murder Daniel Pearl.
Any state or organisation can claim that its death making is legally, morally or religiously sanctioned.
Whether it is murder or justified killing is incredibly flexible.