Execution

[SalixIncendium]

Measured by your own personal moral standards, when it is justifiable to take the life of another being by execution?

Does this standard vary from your religious or spiritual beliefs? If so, how?



*For the purpose of this thread, 'execution' is defined as taking the life of another being in a premeditated fashion against his/her will when there is no immediate danger to the executioner and s/he is not acting is self-defense.


*Edit: Adjusted the definition of 'execution' to exclude those who want to end their own lives voluntarily.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I presume you are speaking only of human beings, but not necessarily. Most instances of killing an animal such as hunting or swatting a fly fit your definition. Still, I'll assume that you mean executing human beings only.

By my personal standards, the cold blooded killing of a sentient human being is never justified.

Edit: After a little more thought, I'd add that by my standards, one may perform an abortion on an early stage embryo or fetus, or assist in a suicide, or pull the plug on a comatose, brain dead patient, which is deliberately killing or allowing the death of a human being, without violating my personal code of ethics.

These also seem to fit your definition of execution, I also wouldn't use the word execution in any of those contexts, and I doubt that you would either, or that that is what you meant.

 

[Kemosloby]

You first, It's like your putting all the weight on us to answer a big question.

 

[idav]

I think execution to be a very barbaric means to "justice". Murder is barbaric, executing a murderer is stooping to their level. Most progressive countries except for US know this.

 

[Altfish]

I don't believe in the death sentence for any wrong doing.

 

[BSM1]

Let's try a scenerio:
Suppose you have a man who has raped and killed multiple children before being caught and tried. Suppose also that this animal has publicly stated that if given the chance he would gladly rape and kill another child. Now, firstly, why would any rational human being have a problem with removing this man from the face of the earth? Secondly, wouldn't a life sentence with no possibility of parole would be a long term death sentence anyway?

Religiously, Jesus never tried to stop the death sentences of the other two beside him on the crosses.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I presume you are speaking only of human beings, but not necessarily. Most instances of killing an animal such as hunting or swatting a fly fit your definition. Still, I'll assume that you mean executing human beings only.

I intentionally used the term 'being' instead of 'human' to allow the respondent to choose whether s/he wanted to include other beings than human.

Edit: After a little more thought, I'd add that by my standards, one may perform an abortion on an early stage embryo or fetus, or assist in a suicide, or pull the plug on a comatose, brain dead patient, which is deliberately killing or allowing the death of a human being, without violating my personal code of ethics.

These also seem to fit your definition of execution, I also wouldn't use the word execution in any of those contexts, and I doubt that you would either, or that that is what you meant.

You make a good point. I will adjust my definition in the OP.

 

[BSM1]

I think execution to be a very barbaric means to "justice". Murder is barbaric, executing a murderer is stooping to their level. Most progressive countries except for US know this.

No, taking them out in the street and beating them with a baseball bat while they scream for mercy is barbaric and brings you down to their level. Execution sanctioned and administrated by law is justice.

 

[idav]

No, taking them out in the street and beating them with a baseball bat while they scream for mercy is barbaric and brings you down to their level. Execution sanctioned and administrated by law is justice.

What your describing is inhumane. It's interesting because we have laws to make execution humane. I'm of the opinion that executing a person is inhumane, regardless of the means, certainly some methods may be less brutal but that's just covering up the real horror.

 

[PureX]

 

[Laika]

Measured by your own personal moral standards, when it is justifiable to take the life of another being by execution?

My reply is rambling a bit here, but I think being honest on this subject means it is ok.

There really is no "justification" for taking another life except expediency. Is there really any "principle" actually worth more than a "person"? I don't think so. If there is evil, killing people is going to be pretty high on the list because it is inflicting and causing suffering. It makes any claim that "killing is good" very difficult to defend if you think of good and bad in terms of pleasure and pain.

By definition taking a person's life is outside of the scope of morality as a basis for regulating social relationships. Execution entails "the end" of the relationship, and the "the end" of the source of the morality itself- namely a person. As people are the source of individual principles, they are the source of judgements of right and wrong. The death of a person means the death of the principle. To kill someone is to go "beyond good and evil" because you've taken the humanity out of the equation (literally). Death is an absolute and there is no absolute standard of right and wrong because all of them are made by humans, who necessarily make imperfect judgements.

All moralities in this area, in so far as they are social constructs are self-negating and I'm very suspicious of beliefs that say otherwise because it hinges on basing a morality on an authority rather than individual conscience. So it is not moral because killing the person kills the principle to "justify" killing them in the first place. Execution is not moral merely necessary. There is no law for the dead, so can there really be a law which justifies killing people? When do the principles of the community take precedence over the life of one of its members?

I would apply the same logic to "another being" in that I have the power to kill animals as a source of meat in order to eat. I would also accept cannibalism in an extreme survival situation though that is obviously going to be difficult.

The question for me is what are the circumstances where I would depart from a "conventional" morality to sheer, naked power and expediency. From a human relationship to an animal one. I don't know and I'm happy not really finding out. If you forced me to answer I'd say I'd accept execution "if I could live with it" which is very arbitrary and subjective and not really conducive to a reasoned response. It is also extremely dangerous because a psychopath or someone who simply doesn't care but I'd still prefer to recognise how dangerous and subjective such a judgement is over false certainty.

That's not really an answer but I think anyone who is prepared to kill someone will have to do it with the understanding that they could be wrong or else will give that power to kill to an authority that is capable of mistakes and abuse.

Does this standard vary from your religious or spiritual beliefs? If so, how?

yes. I still have something resembling a belief in the sanctity of human life or the "right" to life despite not believing in either god or natural law. This is an area I am very confused and conflicted because there was not any single text or source to clarify the nature of the belief (when I was still a Communist). The experience of being on the same side of the argument as Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc, means the "horror" of the question and the nature of that kind of power is something that stays with me. So instead I have a jumble of ideas rather than anything more logically thought out. I suspect that logical arguments become almost irrelevant when you are dealing with life and death questions (because logic is also man-made and partly subjective). I haven't seen anything to suggest otherwise that makes me feel "comfortable" with the idea.

 

[Jumi]

I'd put murder, rape, deliberately spreading AIDS, some financial crimes, torture, harassing someone to suicide and terrorism out there as "deserving" death if caught before any repentance can be shown.

Does this standard vary from your religious or spiritual beliefs? If so, how?

Not really.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Death doesn't solve, fix, or make right death, and because one mother, brother, aunt, or child lost a loved one, why should demand that a father, sister, uncle, or another child also loose a loved one?

Now, firstly, why would any rational human being have a problem with removing this man from the face of the earth?

Because many of us don't really feel like sinking down to their level.

Secondly, wouldn't a life sentence with no possibility of parole would be a long term death sentence anyway?

Long term, but it is not sentencing them to die. You might as well say upon delivery of a baby, the doctor, midwives, or whoever has judged the baby to death.

 

[PureX]

Measured by your own personal moral standards, when it is justifiable to take the life of another being by execution?

Does this standard vary from your religious or spiritual beliefs? If so, how?

*For the purpose of this thread, 'execution' is defined as taking the life of another being in a premeditated fashion against his/her will when there is no immediate danger to the executioner and s/he is not acting is self-defense.

I don't believe that an execution is ever "justified", but I do believe there are instances in which it is reasonable, and necessary, to do. And those would be instances in which someone has shown themselves to be an ongoing and incurable threat to the life and well-being of others. People who have killed indiscriminately, for the thrill of killing, for example. People who have killed ideologically, like a terrorist. People who have killed more than once, to solve their own problems or for their own gain. These people have shown that killing other people has become their way of life. And I do not believe that society has an obligation to accept them as an ongoing deadly threat, by keeping them alive.

I believe that it's a mistake to approach criminality in terms of justifiable vengeance, or in terms of preventative punishments. I think it should be handled in terms of public safety and security. When someone has been found to be a sufficient threat to society that they must be removed from it, they should remain removed until it is deemed that they are no longer a threat. That means a crime like violent robbery or rape could keep one in prison for life, or for only a few years, depending on their own subsequent behavior.

 

[Vee]

Measured by your own personal moral standards, when it is justifiable to take the life of another being by execution?

Does this standard vary from your religious or spiritual beliefs? If so, how?



*For the purpose of this thread, 'execution' is defined as taking the life of another being in a premeditated fashion against his/her will when there is no immediate danger to the executioner and s/he is not acting is self-defense.


*Edit: Adjusted the definition of 'execution' to exclude those who want to end their own lives voluntarily.

I am against the death penalty. Other than, like you mentioned, self defense, I don't think we should ever take a human life.
It is true that some people don't deserve to exist. Some are so evil that the world would be better of without them, but does that give us the right to end their lives? Wouldn't that makes us go down to their level?
There are better ways to make justice. For example, put them in a high security jail without access to TV, Internet or phones and make them work hard everyday from early morning until it's time to go to bed to the rest of their miserable existence.

 

[SabahTheLoner]

I believe that humans who have done very terrible and unforgivable wrongs can be executed in a way that is justifiable. An execution as defined is justifiable only in this case. And if you are to take the life of an animal for eating, it must be done in the most respectful and painless way possible. This appplies to both slaughter of domestic livestock and hunting game for consumption. In fact killing an animal when you don’t intend to eat it, unless it poses immediate danger, isn’t something that is justified easily if at all.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't believe that an execution is ever "justified", but I do believe there are instances in which it is reasonable, and necessary, to do. And those would be instances in which someone has shown themselves to be an ongoing and incurable threat to the life and well-being of others. People who have killed indiscriminately, for the thrill of killing, for example. People who have killed ideologically, like a terrorist. People who have killed more than once, to solve their own problems or for their own gain. These people have shown that killing other people has become their way of life. And I do not believe that society has an obligation to accept them as an ongoing deadly threat, by keeping them alive.

I think Norway has an excellent system where a maximum number of years are served, and the person evaluated. If they are no longer a threat/danger to themselves or others, they are freed. If they do remain a danger, they have more time added onto their sentence and will be re-evaluated a few years later.

 

[BSM1]

Death doesn't solve, fix, or make right death, and because one mother, brother, aunt, or child lost a loved one, why should demand that a father, sister, uncle, or another child also loose a loved one?

Because many of us don't really feel like sinking down to their level.

Supposing that murderer has killed someone's child that you are close to and has vowed to come after your child (or the child of a family member) next. And suppose you had the authority to impose a death sentence on this individual but you decided his existence was more important than you stepping down off your moral high ground. And say, consequently, this animal who has absolutely no morals is somehow freed from prison and fulfills his promise; what do we say to the dead child?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

what do we say to the dead child?

Nothing?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Judaism allows for the death penalty.

I would allow for it only if deemed a required societal catharsis, the obvious example being the execution of Hitler had he been captured. Two things concern me:

1. Too often we find ourselves legally executing those later found to be innocent or possibly innocent.
2. It is hard for me to imagine a person committing a crime worthy of capital punishment without that person being mentally ill, and I find it difficult to justify executing the mentally ill.