Execution

[beenherebeforeagain]

I grew up in McHenry County, IL, about 40 miles NW of Cook County, which is where this issue occurred. This overpopulation was a result of severe reduction in the deer's habitat through a surge in deforestation and building. I take exception to calling the killing "necessary" when then deforestation that caused it was not necessary to begin with.

I experienced the same thing about 10 years ago in Mercer County, PA, where they removed a forest which was home to coyotes to build a Walmart Supercenter. This displaced the coyotes, which were forced into residential areas. Of course, there was a "necessary" culling of the coyote population as a result.

Of course the wiser thing would have been not to disrupt habitat--but in Chicago/Cook County and environs it was not just destruction of habitat, it was failure to manage habitat and populations effectively--hunting was strictly prohibited, and there were no major predators to prey on the deer. A population explosion was inevitable.

So, how do you think the population explosion should have been handled, that doesn't involve killing?

How do you propose that humans, who show no signs of doing things necessary to reduce their impact on natural ecosystems, start doing so? As long as humans continue to act as they do in encroaching on natural areas, they will NEED to (whether or not they actually do) take an active role in managing those remaining natural areas.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

There are other ways of dealing with people unfit to be free in society ever again. Put them on an island with a jungle or woods, potable water, and arable land patrolled by a coast guard.

Give them shovels, seed, axes, saws, and let them try to make a life for themselves. If they want to kill one another, that's their business. I expect that most would learn a new worldview and ethical code, and begin to eliminate those that harmed or threatened the others. That would be their choice.

The government on the island would be by their own design, and the laws of their choosing. They would not be permitted to communicate with people off the island. Nobody visits this island except boats bringing in new exiles. They are dead to the outside world.

Good luck to them all. Society's problem in this area would be solved at almost no expense or risk, and nobody need be executed by the state.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Of course the wiser thing would have been not to disrupt habitat--but in Chicago/Cook County and environs it was not just destruction of habitat, it was failure to manage habitat and populations effectively--hunting was strictly prohibited, and there were no major predators to prey on the deer. A population explosion was inevitable.

The only reason the population explosion was inevitable is because people first killed off the wolves and cougars, who were the deer's natural predators.

So, how do you think the population explosion should have been handled, that doesn't involve killing?

Unfortunately, the killing became necessary due the negligent behavior of humans. Fortunately, not much of the meat from the culling went to waste, as it donated to the Northern Illinois Food Bank.

How do you propose that humans, who show no signs of doing things necessary to reduce their impact on natural ecosystems, start doing so? As long as humans continue to act as they do in encroaching on natural areas, they will NEED to (whether or not they actually do) take an active role in managing those remaining natural areas.

Perhaps it would be prudent of humans to study impacts on natural areas before encroaching on them, or stop encroaching on them altogether.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Perhaps it would be prudent of humans to study impacts on natural areas before encroaching on them, or stop encroaching on them altogether.

I agree that studying, thinking and planning ahead, and avoiding encroachment would be best.

Unfortunately, historically that is not what humans have done, and are barely doing now, and only in a few areas. Of course, such planning could also be useful in addressing issues of poverty, health, infrastructure, emergency preparedness and response, and so on. A big part of that is controlling the further growth of human populations and reorganizing society...

But lacking that, humans are going to have to make tough decisions on all sorts of fronts.

I think though, I've managed to lead you and me off where the rest of the discussion has gone...

 

[Bird123]

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.

Execution. Is it laziness or ignorance? Problems will never ever go away until they are solved. Does execution really solve anything? Doesn't it just sweep the real problem under the carpet to await until the problem pops it's head back up out of the masses???

If I ruled the world, I would have many universities doing major studies on the underlying causes of all crime. Once causes are determined, society can work on solutions. I think with even a little effort the crime rate would fall to reward our efforts. Given a few centuries of work and one might even find prisons obsolete.

You speak of morals. What is the true moral thing to do? Shall we continue to choose laziness and ignorance thereby executing or do we do whatever it takes so it never happens again?

 

[bobhikes]

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.

IMO, When you purposely take another's life you forfeit the right to keep yours. The executioner is fulfilling a duty of law and exempt from previous statement.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Ethically they shouldn't have broken the law in the first place. Do I sense selective ethics?

Once again, one of them didn't but was executed as arguably the most innocent man.
And if you're seriously equivocating 'commits any crime' with 'deserves death sentence', then you've got more problems than me friend.
Laws don't justify themselves.

 

[BSM1]

Once again, one of them didn't but was executed as arguably the most innocent man.
And if you're seriously equivocating 'commits any crime' with 'deserves death sentence', then you've got more problems than me friend.
Laws don't justify themselves.

I think the death penalty could be justified for practically anything above jaywalking.

 

[QuestioningMind]

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.

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

Because the alternative of permanently removing him from society so that he can no longer harm others is available. Killing him won't bring back the kids he's already killed and doing so only serves to devalue the notion that killing other people who are not a direct threat to your or another's well being is wrong.

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

No, it's a sentence of imprisonment that remains in effect for the duration of the prisoner's natural life.

 

[BSM1]

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

Because the alternative of permanently removing him from society so that he can no longer harm others is available. Killing him won't bring back the kids he's already killed and doing so only serves to devalue the notion that killing other people who are not a direct threat to your or another's well being is wrong.

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

No, it's a sentence of imprisonment that remains in effect for the duration of the prisoner's natural life.

Well it would certainly stop the person from raping and killing another ten year-old girl.

And people have been released from prisons for a number of unforeseen reasons. Is it worth taking a chance?

And before you ask, yes, I would have no problem pulling the switch on animals like this, and I wouldn't loose a minutes worth of sleep over it. You think that makes me less of a human being than you? Tough.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I think the death penalty could be justified for practically anything above jaywalking.

And before you ask, yes, I would have no problem pulling the switch on animals like this, and I wouldn't loose a minutes worth of sleep over it. You think that makes me less of a human being than you? Tough.

Well, I guess I'll never have to worry about physician assisted suicide. If I ever experience unbearable pain and feel the need to end my life, I'll just run a red light and then drop by your place for a visit.

 

[PureX]

There are other ways of dealing with people unfit to be free in society ever again. Put them on an island with a jungle or woods, potable water, and arable land patrolled by a coast guard.

Screw that! Execute them, and give ME the island!

 

[QuestioningMind]

Well it would certainly stop the person from raping and killing another ten year-old girl.

And people have been released from prisons for a number of unforeseen reasons. Is it worth taking a chance?

And before you ask, yes, I would have no problem pulling the switch on animals like this, and I wouldn't loose a minutes worth of sleep over it. You think that makes me less of a human being than you? Tough.

"And people have been released from prisons for a number of unforeseen reasons. Is it worth taking a chance?"

That's a flaw in the legal system, largely due to the fact that our prisons are overflowing with victims of this nations moronic war on drugs and we don't devote the proper resources to keeping an eye on the truly dangerous criminals. But all of that aside, there are increasing instances where we find that completely innocent people of have wrongly been convicted of murder. I don't think it's worth it to take the chance of killing someone innocent, just because I fear that some dangerous individual might be mistakenly released for some unforeseen reason.

"And before you ask, yes, I would have no problem pulling the switch on animals like this, and I wouldn't loose a minutes worth of sleep over it. You think that makes me less of a human being than you? Tough"

Actually, I had no intention of asking. Interesting that you automatically assumed that I would and felt compelled to assert how you'd feel no guilt about doing so.

 

[sayak83]

I don't suppose that you are aware of cases where the state got it wrong, I doubt if you even care.

List of wrongful convictions in the United States - Wikipedia

Yes I do care.
If Hitler were caught alive do you think there would be a doubt regarding his guilt?I am specifically talking about genocide and crimes against humanity type of activities where people murdered thousands and thousands of people through progroms.

Suppose the North Korean leader was somehow deposed and caught. What do you recommend that we do?

 

[Tmac]

Yes I do care.
If Hitler were caught alive do you think there would be a doubt regarding his guilt?I am specifically talking about genocide and crimes against humanity type of activities where people murdered thousands and thousands of people through progroms.

Suppose the North Korean leader was somehow deposed and caught. What do you recommend that we do?

Do you know him personally, I don't think so, so all you know about him is what you heard, you don't even know if its true and here you are executing him. Righteous.

 

[sayak83]

Do you know him personally, I don't think so, so all you know about him is what you heard, you don't even know if its true and here you are executing him. Righteous.

He will be given a trial, and if his guilt in killing hundreds of his own citizens is proven, he should be executed. I would consider it righteous. Absolutely.

What would you propose instead?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

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 consider the killing of another human to be the greatest evil that one person can visit on another. Not only do you take everything, and I mean everything, from a that person, but you also scar all those that loved that person with pain for the rest of their lives. In the process you also wound your own soul and allow darkness to taint your humanity. Therefore I would never take another life, unless for my own protection and the protection others there was no other option. A murderer behind bars is no longer a threat, and to execute that person only multiples the number of deaths. You can't solve murder with murder.

 

[sayak83]

There are other ways of dealing with people unfit to be free in society ever again. Put them on an island with a jungle or woods, potable water, and arable land patrolled by a coast guard.

Give them shovels, seed, axes, saws, and let them try to make a life for themselves. If they want to kill one another, that's their business. I expect that most would learn a new worldview and ethical code, and begin to eliminate those that harmed or threatened the others. That would be their choice.

The government on the island would be by their own design, and the laws of their choosing. They would not be permitted to communicate with people off the island. Nobody visits this island except boats bringing in new exiles. They are dead to the outside world.

Good luck to them all. Society's problem in this area would be solved at almost no expense or risk, and nobody need be executed by the state.

What happens to their children in the island?

 

[England my lionheart]

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.

My personal opinion is that if proven beyond all doubt that a prisoner is quilty of murder they should be in prison till the end of their days with an option to commit suicide at any time during their sentence, which is more than they gave to their victim, I also think that there are crimes of passion which should be dealt with in a different way.

 

[Poisonshady313]

4) The state disproportionately executes people from minority backgrounds.

That's an interesting claim.
Disproportionately relative to what?