The Death Penalty

[Mithol]

I really don't know how differently I can articulate it, than what I've already said.

When a person engages in certain conduct, they waive the right to object to that conduct being directed back to them.

But why? I'm a philosophy student, so I'm just really curious. Do you have any basis for this claim? What makes killing wrong? First, you have to figure that out, and then surely, there should be a really good reason why, in some cases, it isn't wrong.

 

[Bluebird]

I'm against it. Basically, I see it as murder no matter what other names people use. The fact that the justice system is very far from perfect, is another reason. You can't be 100% certain that every person sentenced to death was guilty, so it is a guarantee that innocents have been killed. Just like the innocents we're trying to 'protect'. Is that a sacrifice people are willing to take? That a few innocent will die in the process of dealing out justice?

I don't trust the system enough for it to have responsibility over life and death in this way.

Although, even if there was a way of always knowing who was guilty and who was innocent, I'd still be against it.

 

[InsaneMystic]

Okay, I'm not advocating the death penalty here but just for the sake of argument. Locking someone up and taking away their freedom is wrong, yet we do it to murderers and people who have committed crimes. Taking someone's money is wrong, yet we make people pay fines for traffic infractions etc.

You know, I'm not a fan of the idea of imprisonment, either. Still, in the case of someone who remains a constant risk to other people's right to live and freedom from physical harm, I vote for revoking his right for free movement - because the ranking of importance of rights makes locking him up the lesser evil. We are wronging him by locking him up, but we'd do more wrong by allowing him to walk free.

If we are to kill him, this ranking of values breaks down. We may as well save the tax payers' money wasted on paying judges and DAs and all the legal claptrap and just toss a coin.

Killing someone is wrong but do you think our grandfathers were wrong to kill German and Japanese soldiers in WW2?

Yes. That's not to say Germany and Japan were anything else than utterly dangerous aggressors (with unbelievable interior atrocities on top of it, in Germany's case)... but yes, it was wrong to kill them.

The only way society can function without turning to anarchy is to use the rule "Don't do to others what you don't want done to you."

So, don't execute convicts if you don't want to be killed yourself. Duh?!

It all gets down to self defense. We kill in war out of self defense. Many advocates for the death penalty claim it is a form of defense (and with the amount of murders and manslaughter criminals commit after they have gotten out on parole it's not a wholly invalid argument).

No. No, no, no, and hell, no. Self defense is only a valid reasoning in an immediate situation of threat, and even then only if you do not use excessive force. If someone holds a gun in your face, you may kill him in self defense. If someone might get a gun some time in future, and you kill him preemptively - then you are the criminal, not him. Also, if you can safely disable him from attacking, and go on to kill him, that's not self-defense either, that's manslaughter, and you should face the full strength of the law for that, too.

Seriously, if we allow for B.S. like "preemptive self-defense", then I want proof that child murderers shouldn't be celebrated as heroes and guardians of society. I mean, every single one of those dead kids, had we foolishly allowed them to live on, could have become the next Adolf Hitler or Charles Manson, right? Are we really ready to live with that horrible risk? 😡

 

[Taake]

OTOH, if someone killed my child, I would (if I could) shoot them dead. In a New York minute.

Agreed!

IMO the best argument against the DP is the possibility that one.single.innocent person would be put to death. One is too many. That argument is dispositive, and makes me oppose the DP.

I see it the opposite way. One single person (or at least a statistically low figure) is a negligble number and acceptable in terms of the greater good.

But I don't buy the other arguments being made here. To me, when someone deliberately kills another human being, that person is consenting to being killed themselves. They are declaring that they are willing to live under different rules than those that prevail in society. Putting that person to death is nothing more than subjecting them to the system of rules that they have chosen, a system where killing is okay. They get to choose.

Wel put, and agreed.

So, don't execute convicts if you don't want to be killed yourself. Duh?!

Or more simply - don't kill people and don't end up on death row. Plenty of people manage to do it every day.

 

[patriot1123]

But why? I'm a philosophy student, so I'm just really curious. Do you have any basis for this claim? What makes killing wrong? First, you have to figure that out, and then surely, there should be a really good reason why, in some cases, it isn't wrong.

What makes killing wrong is that it violates the most fundamental right that the other person has, the right to stay alive.

But the other person has the moral ability to forfeit that right if they choose to. And, engaging in the act of killing forfeits that right. The act of killing declares that the killer is willing to live under rules where the right to stay alive is not protected.

Now I've said it as many different ways as I can think of and I have nothing more to offer. 🙂

 

[HalloweenRain]

I'm gonna play a little devil's advocate for a second. There is one reason for me that trumps all others as far as con-DP goes. It is the fact that when a jury knows a criminal will be sentenced to death if they are found guilty, many, just like most of you will be very put off. To clear their own conscience a jury might decide to acquit said guilty man.

Honestly though with the screening that is done, this argument is somewhat ineffective.

 

[InsaneMystic]

Or more simply - don't kill people and don't end up on death row. Plenty of people manage to do it every day.

Why shouldn't they kill people, though? If society is legitimately killing people, why on Earth should it be forbidden to do so privately? That's thoroughly anti-democratic.

"Because authority says so" is an argument for sheep (and one for which people got hanged in 1945 at Nuremberg!). If you follow that line, you basically should agree that the law is always right, so you most certainly should root for women getting stoned to death under the Shariah instead of spouting some feminist propaganda against it. After all, if they behaved like a decent Muslima should, they would never have a problem. Also, if you watch "Schindler's List", don't you dare root for the titular lawbreaker standing in the way of SS operations that were lawful to its most horrific extreme.

HalloweenRain agrees: I agree 100%. The amount of innocent people sentenced to death in no way overrules the amount of innocent murdered at the hands of released criminals.
HalloweenRain agrees: There is a difference between murder and capita punishment. the focus on the physical similarities and denying the MORAL differences, just shows how much it is misunderstood.

Taken to its logical extreme, we should just kill everyone and let God sort them out. You, yourself, might kill someone in ten years, so hereby I declare your life forfeit according to your own logic. You just waived any right to live you may have had, because everyone, including you, me, the granny next door, and the kids on the playground is a potential murderer, rapist, arsonist, torturer, whathaveyou. The more people we kill off, the safer we're making the world. Bring out the H-Bombs to speed paradise along.

Seriously, I don't give a fig about any difference in "morality", that's a construct that has long outlived its usefulness for me. "Innocent" doesn't mean "good", it just refers to people who happen not to have broken any law YET. You - and yes, I do mean you personally - are not one bit better than a murderer, you're just lucky enough not to have gotten into a situation yet that would have made you realize your potential for lethal violence. Anything else, like the moral differenciation betwen "good innocents vs. evil criminals" is just a convenient lie to make people feel better about themselves.

If you demand the right to have murderers killed, why deny people the right to kill kids if they find that to be fulfilling some want for them? I honestly do not see the difference.

 

[HalloweenRain]

Right. Because when I look at a bunch of kids playing alone, I think "Hmm let me just rape and murder a few of them" Oh wait...No I don't. Want to know why? Because I AM better that a raping murderer because I have morals and values. What kind of situation could bring you to sodomize a little boy then strangle him to death? I think maybe you're judging me based on what You - and yes, I do mean you personally - would do in a situation like that.
Another thing, we aren't talking about one-time piddly offenders here, we're speaking of hardened murder-for-pleasure criminals. Yeah the granny next door might have the capacity to kill, but unless she really does and proves that she could go through it, why should we kill her? That's stupid and illogical. I'm speaking of people who have already proven they will kill. They already have, so they should not receive the benefit of the doubt. People that have not killed others, should.

 

[Taake]

Why shouldn't they kill people, though? If society is legitimately killing people, why on Earth should it be forbidden to do so privately? That's thoroughly anti-democratic.

Really I don't want to respond because I feel you're twisting my words and taking your own argument to a point of ridicule. At the very least you could try to be polite instead of condescending.

As for what you just wrote I will refer to an earlier post by patriot123 pointing out that murderers e.g. have chosen to live outside of the rule of the mainstream law and if anything society has always found a way to protect itself from murderers (it's even in most holy books though that's a completely different topic I won't dwell on).

Capital punishment is not a way of saying - "hey, murder's fun, more for everyone" - it is a last resort to prevent the harming of fellow human beings by someone who has provenly and maliciously already done so.

"Because authority says so" is an argument for sheep (and one for which people got hanged in 1945 at Nuremberg!).

I said no such thing and I do not appreciate words being put in my mouth or the reference.

If you follow that line, you basically should agree that the law is always right, so you most certainly should root for women getting stoned to death under the Shariah instead of spouting some feminist propaganda against it. After all, if they behaved like a decent Muslima should, they would never have a problem.

I repeat: You're taking things to a point of ridicule while desperately grabbing at completely different questions that will help you make your case. I frankly feel disrespected by this and will not dignify this absurd claim with an answer.

Also, if you watch "Schindler's List", don't you dare root for the titular lawbreaker standing in the way of SS operations that were lawful to its most horrific extreme.

"Don't you dare" - I'm sorry, but do you get to dictate what I dare or dare not feel and think?

Taken to its logical extreme, we should just kill everyone and let God sort them out.

And for those who don't believe in any 'sorting'?

You, yourself, might kill someone in ten years, so hereby I declare your life forfeit according to your own logic. You just waived any right to live you may have had, because everyone, including you, me, the granny next door, and the kids on the playground is a potential murderer, rapist, arsonist, torturer, whathaveyou. The more people we kill off, the safer we're making the world. Bring out the H-Bombs to speed paradise along.

Ridiculous, I'm not going to argue against this because it's silly, slightly offensive ranting to me and I won't feed fuel to that flame.

 

[InsaneMystic]

Right. Because when I look at a bunch of kids playing alone, I think "Hmm let me just rape and murder a few of them" Oh wait...No I don't. Want to know why? Because I AM better that a raping murderer because I have morals and values. What kind of situation could bring you to sodomize a little boy then strangle him to death? I think maybe you're judging me based on what You - and yes, I do mean you personally - would do in a situation like that.

You know what that makes me, personally? A human being.
If that's how you see it, I honestly feel sorry for you.

Really I don't want to respond because I feel you're twisting my words and taking your own argument to a point of ridicule. At the very least you could try to be polite instead of condescending.

Hard to be polite when you obviously don't recognize the universality of human rights, while blaming others for not doing so. There's an old saying in Germany of "one donkey calling the other long-ear".

As for what you just wrote I will refer to an earlier post by patriot123 pointing out that murderers e.g. have chosen to live outside of the rule of the mainstream law and if anything society has always found a way to protect itself from murderers (it's even in most holy books though that's a completely different topic I won't dwell on).

There are better ways to protect society. Especially considering Ben Franklin's adage about giving up basic liberties for a bit more security - in that case you deserve neither, and will lose both in the end.

Capital punishment is not a way of saying - "hey, murder's fun, more for everyone" - it is a last resort to prevent the harming of fellow human beings by someone who has provenly and maliciously already done so.

A last resort people jump to without looking for better ones, ones that are in keeping with values they profess. If you don't subscribe to such values, fine. But then don't be offended by being compared to the Nazis, and don't cry about equal rights for people (like, you know, women, for example) - if you don't care about universal human rights, Nazi Germany was nothing but a very efficiently run country. Unemployment rate near zero, industry booming, street crime close to wiped out... and if you were "Aryan", heterosexual, and loyal to the Party line, noone would ever think of harassing you, so you still had every liberty you need. (If you don't fit that roster - well, tough tortillas for you - but them criminals have it comin', and foreigners can just go home, right?)

I said no such thing and I do not appreciate words being put in my mouth or the reference.

Explain to me then, what, in your opinion, is wrong with killing people? Why shouldn't I have the right to shoot peeps in the head for fun? No pro-PD has as yet given any reason why "killing is bad", you're cordially invited to change that if you got one.

"Don't you dare" - I'm sorry, but do you get to dictate what I dare or dare not feel and think?

No, I don't. I do however get to consider your logic so thoroughly flawed that it's hard to take it serious. (Even though it's seriously dangerous, seeing as you're allowed to vote. :sigh: )
Believing in authority unfounded by logical, consistent reason, while rooting for Schindler against the SS is dissonant to the point of stupidity. Of course, you do have the right to be stupid... as yet, both yours and mine still are free countries, right?

And for those who don't believe in any 'sorting'?

They're still much safer off dead. Whether God exist or not - killing off every human on Earth puts an end to all crime. Efficiently. Permanently.

Ridiculous, I'm not going to argue against this because it's silly, slightly offensive ranting to me and I won't feed fuel to that flame.

Yeah, whatev's. 🙄

 

[patriot1123]

Insane Mystic: This discussion would be more engaging without the personal attacks. It's hard to see past them.

 

[InsaneMystic]

Aside from calling you human beings (which implies that you are potential murderers and child molesters - if you have a problem with that, that will be your problem to cope with, not mine. Not here to therapy you, just to inform you about how the concept of liberty and human rights works. 😛), I've only been attacking viewpoints, not persons. There's other peeps here you'd have more reason to chide for that. (But you likely won't, as they're on your side of the discussion table - unsurprisingly, human nature being as it is. 😉)

If you don't like your viewpoints being attacked (by having fallacies and inconsistencies flung back in your face), just don't mention them in the first place.

 

[patriot1123]

It's been my experience on message boards that people who make it too personal often don't realize they're doing it.

Unfortunately, I've had occasion to realize that applies to me, too.

 

[Thamior]

No. No, no, no, and hell, no. Self defense is only a valid reasoning in an immediate situation of threat, and even then only if you do not use excessive force. If someone holds a gun in your face, you may kill him in self defense. If someone might get a gun some time in future, and you kill him preemptively - then you are the criminal, not him. Also, if you can safely disable him from attacking, and go on to kill him, that's not self-defense either, that's manslaughter, and you should face the full strength of the law for that, too.

Seriously, if we allow for B.S. like "preemptive self-defense", then I want proof that child murderers shouldn't be celebrated as heroes and guardians of society. I mean, every single one of those dead kids, had we foolishly allowed them to live on, could have become the next Adolf Hitler or Charles Manson, right? Are we really ready to live with that horrible risk? 😡

Absolutely agree. The fact that someone has done wrong things in the past is not sufficient proof to say we know that they're going to do it again. We might have suspicion of it, but being suspicious is not enough reason to kill someone. It's an illogical step, and the fact that people are dying because of it makes it worse.

I have one more arguments to add though. I originally thought of this during a discussion about punishing people who had committed crimes in concentration camps during world war 2. Now, at the time, EVERYTHING that the SS was doing in, lets say, Auschwitz, was legal. By law, they were doing nothing wrong. Here's a step by step of why I think it is hypocritical to sentence ex-Nazi's, yet allow capital punishment.


STEP 1: The government (through laws) deems that a person does not deserve to live, because they are a threat to society.

STEP 2: A person works as a guard at a facility where these people are held.

STEP 3: The guard is told to administer a deadly dose of poison to the 'dangerous' individual.

STEP 4: The guard does so, because he understands that the death of this person could save lives of others. Why does he believe that? Re-read step 1.

Now, can anyone tell me who this story is about? Is it about an SS soldier told to kill a person in a death camp, or is it about a guard at a prison in which people are on death row? More importantly, is there a difference?

How can we possibly say that we KNOW FOR A FACT that it is morally correct to kill someone who is a "threat to society," while teaching our children that when Germany did the same thing 65 years ago, it was a crime against humanity? I'm not saying that people who believe in capital punishment are like Nazis, but I'm saying that your beliefs are hypocritical (not an attack on you, just on your argument).

What if, in 50 years, we decide that capital punishment is wrong. Will we then treat guards at prisons the way we now treat ex-Nazis? If not, then what is the difference? And if you say, "well now we KNOW that we're justified in killing people," then just look at history. WE NEVER KNOW ANYTHING. Infinite times people have thought they knew what the right thing to do is, and nearly every time they've been wrong. At least if there's no capital punishment, we won't kill people because we think it's the "right thing to do." Because, if there is one part of morality that has always been the same, it's that death is bad.

 

[caritas08]

Can some of the posters on here really not see a difference between Allied soldiers defending their countries (which were attacked first with no provocation) by killing Nazi soldiers and in someone who brutally attacks, rapes and kills a child?

Are you honestly comparing the murder of thousands of innocent people in the Holocaust (people who did not kill or harm anyone) to sentencing a serial killer like Ted Bundy to death row?

As in every post I have written, I am not advocating the death penalty, but to suggest that all killing is the exact same and make no distinction between someone who brutally tortures, rapes and murders a little child and a soldier who is defending his family against an invading country is honestly laughable.

 

[Goby]

As in every post I have written, I am not advocating the death penalty, but to suggest that all killing is the exact same and make no distinction between someone who brutally tortures, rapes and murders a little child and a soldier who is defending his family against an invading country is honestly laughable.

I agree with you, but it is not honestly laughable. There are several religions where there is no distinction (Quakers, some Buddhists, Jainism).

My main issue is that we will virtually NEVER know if someone really did it. Proof of that is 250+ released convicts, some on Death Row, by the Innocence Project. Casey Anthony "probably" did it, and we'll never know if they did, yet most Americans think she did it. Would you really want to give her the death penalty when it could have been someone else, or it could have been an accident, or it could have been something less than 1st Degree murder with special circumstances?

 

[Mithol]

So true [MENTION=10790]Goby[/MENTION]. When Azaria Chamberlain was killed, almost the entire country thought that her mother, Lindy Camberlain, was guilty, because the family were Seventh Day Adventists. She was convicted by a biased jury because of religious intolerance and sentenced to life (I believe). Years later, new evidence proved that she was innocent and she was released.

All I can say is, thank God we don't have the death penalty in Australia.

 

[InsaneMystic]

As in every post I have written, I am not advocating the death penalty, but to suggest that all killing is the exact same and make no distinction between someone who brutally tortures, rapes and murders a little child and a soldier who is defending his family against an invading country is honestly laughable.

There is a difference of degree of juristic guilt involved, and that should, by all means, be reflected in the sentence a judge will give you. There is, however, absolutely no difference at all in the fact of the violation of basic human rights.

A G.I. pulling the trigger on a Wehrmacht soldier violated that Nazi's right to live.
A woman killing her armed rapist in self-defense violates his right to live.
A Texas warden administering DP to a death row convict violates his right to live.
A pedo raping and killing a kid violates the kid's right to live.

In regards of the fact of violation of basic rights, all four cases are exactly the same situation, even though the degree of judicial accountability will of course vary from "almost guaranteed to be fully acquitted" (lethal self-defense against the rapist) to "most likely locked away, possibly for life" (pedo). The other two cases are shady, at best; I won't be able to word it any better than [MENTION=10383]Thamior[/MENTION] did before, so just scroll up for that. 😉

It's not only okay, but necessary to differentiate the judicial consequences, but it's just as necessary, in the name of freedom, democracy, equality and everything that makes it worth even bothering about who won WW2, to call out the violation on all four of the people in the examples, loud and clear. Otherwise, we've crossed a line that will eventually make the Human Rights Declaration worth no more than glorified toilet paper, and the efforts of the Allies against the Axis a pointless waste of time and taxpayers' money. (Lives too, but hey, with Human Rights gone, who cares about a bunch of dead grunts?) America could, after all, just have surrendered after Pearl Harbor, and join the Axis' War against Stalin, right? Sure, you'd probably have the swastika billowing over "Washingtoner Kongresshalle" now, and countless more millions would have been sent to the gas chambers... but with Human Rights gone, who would ever give a damn? (The Jews sure wouldn't. They'd be dead.)

 

[patriot1123]

There is a difference of degree of juristic guilt involved, and that should, by all means, be reflected in the sentence a judge will give you. There is, however, absolutely no difference at all in the fact of the violation of basic human rights.

A G.I. pulling the trigger on a Wehrmacht soldier violated that Nazi's right to live.
A woman killing her armed rapist in self-defense violates his right to live.
A Texas warden administering DP to a death row convict violates his right to live.
A pedo raping and killing a kid violates the kid's right to live.

In regards of the fact of violation of basic rights, all four cases are exactly the same situation, even though the degree of judicial accountability will of course vary from "almost guaranteed to be fully acquitted" (lethal self-defense against the rapist) to "most likely locked away, possibly for life" (pedo). The other two cases are shady, at best; I won't be able to word it any better than [MENTION=10383]Thamior[/MENTION] did before, so just scroll up for that. 😉

It's not only okay, but necessary to differentiate the judicial consequences, but it's just as necessary, in the name of freedom, democracy, equality and everything that makes it worth even bothering about who won WW2, to call out the violation on all four of the people in the examples, loud and clear. Otherwise, we've crossed a line that will eventually make the Human Rights Declaration worth no more than glorified toilet paper, and the efforts of the Allies against the Axis a pointless waste of time and taxpayers' money. (Lives too, but hey, with Human Rights gone, who cares about a bunch of dead grunts?) America could, after all, just have surrendered after Pearl Harbor, and join the Axis' War against Stalin, right? Sure, you'd probably have the swastika billowing over "Washingtoner Kongresshalle" now, and countless more millions would have been sent to the gas chambers... but with Human Rights gone, who would ever give a damn? (The Jews sure wouldn't. They'd be dead.)

This just might be the most amoral POV I've ever encountered.

 

[caritas08]

To me equating the armed rapist's right to live (when he initiated the attack) with the woman he is attacking doesn't make sense and isn't practical regardless of whether the judicial system sides with her or not. True, they were both born with that right, but when he initiated the attack he forfeited that right by making it necessary for her to kill him in order to protect herself. If she considers his right to live she will end up being the one who gets killed.

To me the question isn't "do murderers have the same rights as people who haven't murdered anyone?" It's "is the death penalty a necessary form of self defense and if it is, is it worth the risk of sentencing an innocent person to death row?"

Although I think the whole self defense problem could be solved if we had longer and stricter sentences for violent crimes with no parole instead of the death penalty (as that doesn't even take care of child molesters and sex offenders), I understand people who feel the death penalty is necessary for self defense (especially people I know whose toddlers' lives have been threatened by murderers while they were behind bars). I'm merely stating I can understand both sides of the argument.

[MENTION=7924]InsaneMystic[/MENTION] and to me saying that a woman killing an armed rapist out of self defense and a pedo raping and murdering a child is "the same situation" makes me equally sad.