Execution

[blü 2]

For justice.

Obviously that's a movable feast.

For the prevention of this person ever hurting another child.

As I said, you don't have to kill to do that.

For a message to someone that maybe be border line psycho that may prevent him from killing someone's son or daughter.

I'll be surprised if you can back that with any meaningful evidence, so I invite you to surprise me.

Insanity, you say? Well that's certainly handy. Makes no difference.

So the nature and form of intention don't bear on serious crimes, you say? No more manslaughter / murder 2, no more murder 3 or accidental homicide, kill the lot, is that it?

There is no reason not to end the life of a rabid dog simply because it may offend your sensibilities.

A rabid dog is by definition not in its normal state of self-control. So we should kill humans because they're not in a normal state when they offend, you say?

 

[Milton Platt]

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 do not believe capital punishment should be allowed. The reason is simple. Our system is imperfect and mistakes are made all the time. On top of that, when a person dies, punishment ceases. He/she ceases to exist. But to me, it is not a question of whether a person deserves death. It is a question of how the justice system can be 100% certain 100% of the time. It can't be done.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Say a couple of people enter my house illegally, and they are openly carrying weapons. Let's say I even overhear them, and know that their intent is to do me, or my family, harm. Do you think I will leave myself any room for compunction over trying to stop these individuals by whatever means necessary? Is it wrong for me to defend myself to the point of killing a person who is attempting to kill me? In this scenario, they haven't even committed the crime of killing yet - even if they are swinging the knife at me, if I kill them first then they didn't get to kill. And yet, if I am allowed this self-defense, their death is justified.

I've already disqualified self-defense in the OP from the definition of execution.

Extrapolate this idea to someone who it has been proven already did commit the crime of murder. Does it become wrong to kill the killer because we take away that in-the-moment need for decision making? Is it because we take away the pressure of impending death - is that why we can say that those lives lost due to their killings, or the lives that may be lost going forward aren't worthy of the same defense? Is it simply because the killing becomes "cold" that makes it wrong? A situation then has to be "hot" for it to be defensible?

In this scenario, who has the moral authority to execute? You?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Execution is punishment for a serious evil deed. A murder or treason to the country. It is give to a person after due consideration of the case by competent authority in society. Nothing wrong in this and it does not conflict with Hinduism. The evil should be punished, otherwise there will be no order in the society.

Why does execution have to be the only recourse for punishment?

 

[SalixIncendium]

It would be noticed... and then what? If visits to the island are exclusively to deliver new exiles, how do we handle this situation? Fly over and drop a bomb on the ship-building facility? Wait for the boat to go out to sea and sink it? Deny them entry and let them become nationless pirates?

The exiles would need to be made aware of consequence of escape attempts. Perhaps one of those consequences could be a precision air strike to such a facility or to a boat that was launched from the island.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Perhaps one of those consequences could be a precision air strike to such a facility or to a boat that was launched from the island.

So then cut out the middleman and just execute instead of playing games.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I am not opposed to the death penalty or killing in retribution (as practiced in ancient Norse society). In fact it jibes with the scriptures I follow. Generally killing is not good at all, but when there is an enemy, an aggressor, then to kill the aggressor is not sinful. That's not to sway anyone to my way of thinking or beliefs, but to explain it better than I ever could.

Where in the Bhagavad Gita does it justify the intent of the kill, for reasons such as retribution or revenge?

 

[Poisonshady313]

The exiles would need to be made aware of consequence of escape attempts.

Meditate on that for a moment.

Should the consequence of escaping an island be more severe than the consequence of first degree murder (i.e. being put on that island in the first place)?

 

[SalixIncendium]

So then cut out the middleman and just execute instead of playing games.

Meditate on that for a moment.

Should the consequence of escaping an island be more severe than the consequence of first degree murder (i.e. being put on that island in the first place)?

Perhaps you should go back and read the OP instead of inferring that the option offered up is merely "playing games." The intent shifts from premeditated execution to self-defense resulting from imminent threat.

 

[BSM1]

Obviously that's a movable feast.
As I said, you don't have to kill to do that.
A rabid dog is by definition not in its normal state of self-control. So we should kill humans because they're not in a normal state when they offend, you say?

But an execution would certainly be a guarantee of the perpetrator never hurting anyone else.

If that person has killed and is a threat to kill again then, yes, I have no problem pulling the switch on said person.

BTW people have been known to escape from even the most secure prisons.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Perhaps you should go back and read the OP instead of inferring that the option offered up is merely "playing games." The intent shifts from premeditated execution to self-defense resulting from imminent threat.

Nope. Because the end result may very well end up with execution anyway, so all this island will do is delay the inevitable.... i.e. playing games.

This isn't about taking a moral high ground. This is about being too squeamish to execute murderers, and coming up with a way to effect a death sentence without getting your hands dirty.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Perhaps you should go back and read the OP instead of inferring that the option offered up is merely "playing games." The intent shifts from premeditated execution to self-defense resulting from imminent threat.

I changed my mind... I went ahead and re-read the OP.

"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."

There is no immediate danger to the executioner and it would be hard to claim self defense in launching an air-strike on a boat full of exiles trying to leave the island.

 

[Poisonshady313]

The exiles would need to be made aware of consequence of escape attempts.

It wasn't enough for them to be aware of the consequences of murder... that's what got them sent to the island.

So if killing them is the consequence of an escape attempt, why shouldn't killing them be the consequence of first degree murder in the first place?

 

[Poisonshady313]

On one hand, I don't think it's morally acceptable for one human being to decide to end the life of another, regardless of circumstance.

This decision isn't being made by one human being. On a direct level, it is made by a jury of one's peers. In a more general way, our law/government/society made the decision that death is an acceptable consequence for murder in the first degree by not having outlawed it.

I'm for a third option. Exile. If a person has committed a crime so vile and has not chance of rehabilitation, s/he should be exiled from society, ideally on a secluded island somewhere in the middle of the ocean with others of their kind where they spend the remainder of their years unsupervised. Not only would this eliminate the moral implications of execution, but it would also eliminate financial responsibility for housing them for an extended period of time. The only expense involved would be transporting them to the island.

This is still a death sentence. Except the method isn't injection or electrocution. It's quarantine.

So in summary, I don't find it morally acceptable to take the life of a being, human or otherwise, for any reason other than self-defense.

Your exile scenario suggests you DO find it morally acceptable to take the life of a being for reasons other than self-defense... you just don't want it done quickly. Or in a way that you can see it.[/QUOTE]

 

[SalixIncendium]

Nope. Because the end result may very well end up with execution anyway, so all this island will do is delay the inevitable.... i.e. playing games.

Interesting. Where have you tested this? Because of course, if you haven't tested it, this is nothing more than arrogant conjecture.

This isn't about taking a moral high ground. This is about being too squeamish to execute murderers, and coming up with a way to effect a death sentence without getting your hands dirty.

I'm really having a hard time making any sense of this. Isn't "effect [sic] a death sentence" the same thing as execution?

 

[SalixIncendium]

I changed my mind... I went ahead and re-read the OP.

"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."

There is no immediate danger to the executioner and it would be hard to claim self defense in launching an air-strike on a boat full of exiles trying to leave the island.

So they're escaping the island to come back and lead honest and productive lives?

 

[Poisonshady313]

Not only would this eliminate the moral implications of execution, but it would also eliminate financial responsibility for housing them for an extended period of time.

This statement is only 50% right. It would eliminate the financial responsibility for housing them. The moral implications, however, are exactly the same.

 

[Poisonshady313]

So they're escaping the island to come back and lead honest and productive lives?

How do you know they're not?

I don't have to make that determination, because I would have executed them from the start.

 

[SalixIncendium]

It wasn't enough for them to be aware of the consequences of murder... that's what got them sent to the island.

So if killing them is the consequence of an escape attempt, why shouldn't killing them be the consequence of first degree murder in the first place?

They are given an opportunity to live exiled from society. Come on now. You are acting as if no inmate was ever killed in a prison escape attempt.

 

[SalixIncendium]

This statement is only 50% right. It would eliminate the financial responsibility for housing them. The moral implications, however, are exactly the same.

Except they're not.