Execution

[SalixIncendium]

How do you know they're not?

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

Then we are at an impasse.

 

[Poisonshady313]

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

Our little exchange bears this out. You grant them tools, sustenance, and freedom of movement within the confines of this island. And it's not terribly unreasonable to conclude that they might try to find a way off the island. The consequence for which, OFFERED BY YOU, is death.

So why waste time with all that? Why not death as a consequence for first degree murder?

 

[Koldo]

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

They could be. You couldn't possibly know.
But more importantly, even if you were certain they would go ahead and kill someone, it would still be murder to kill them while they are merely escaping the island. Self-defense requires imminent threat, as in right now.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Except they're not.

They are. It's not that complicated.

Murder someone? Death.
Escape the island? Death.

What am I missing?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Our little exchange bears this out. You grant them tools, sustenance, and freedom of movement within the confines of this island. And it's not terribly unreasonable to conclude that they might try to find a way off the island.

You are assuming with a fair amount of certainty that they will.

The consequence for which, OFFERED BY YOU, is death.

Again, not with 100% certainty.

So why waste time with all that? Why not death as a consequence for first degree murder?

I don't find premeditated murder to be morally acceptable under any circumstance. Another thing you didn't consider in our exchange and that I failed to mention is that execution is the intent to kill. An air strike is not and attempt to kill, but an attempt to thwart an escape.

 

[SalixIncendium]

They could be. You couldn't possibly know.
But more importantly, even if you were certain they would go ahead and kill someone, it would still be murder to kill them while they are merely escaping the island. Self-defense requires imminent threat, as in right now.

See the last paragraph in post #125.

 

[SalixIncendium]

They are. It's not that complicated.

Murder someone? Death.
Escape the island? Death.

What am I missing?

Intent.

 

[Poisonshady313]

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

My usage was proper. Merriam-Webster backs me up on this.

The more common verb affect denotes having an effect or influence.
- the weather affected everyone's mood
The verb effect goes beyond mere influence; it refers to actual achievement of a final result.
- the new administration hopes to effect a peace settlement

The point I'm making is something I've already said plainly... exile is essentially execution, where the method isn't injection or electrocution... but quarantine. Or, perhaps eventually, airstrike.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Intent.

The intent is punishment for the crime.

All that's left is the method.
I say firing squad. (I know it's not really used anymore, but it's my preferred method of capital punishment.)
You say exile.

I say tomato, you say tomAHto.

 

[SalixIncendium]

The intent is punishment for the crime.

All that's left is the method.
I say firing squad. (I know it's not really used anymore, but it's my preferred method of capital punishment.)
You say exile.

I say tomato, you say tomAHto.

While I have enjoyed our banter here, I see no point in continuing. You are clearly not changing your position, nor do I have any intention of changing mine. But thanks the discussion.

 

[Poisonshady313]

You are assuming with a fair amount of certainty that they will.

I offered a hypothetical, suggesting that it is at least possible. Because I wanted to know what your remedy would be for that possibility. And the remedy that you offered is no morally different than injecting them with lethal chemicals in the first place.

I don't find premeditated murder to be morally acceptable under any circumstance.

I don't find execution to be premeditated murder.

Another thing you didn't consider in our exchange and that I failed to mention is that execution is the intent to kill. An air strike is not and attempt to kill, but an attempt to thwart an escape.

If they're on the boat, and you hit that boat with a missile, the people on board are likely to die.

 

[Poisonshady313]

While I have enjoyed our banter here, I see no point in continuing. You are clearly not changing your position, nor do I have any intention of changing mine. But thanks the discussion.

No problem.

Though I may continue to respond, if not for your benefit, then for the benefit of those reading along.

 

[Poisonshady313]

An air strike is not and attempt to kill, but an attempt to thwart an escape.

Consider the fact that prisoners serving life sentences do occasionally attempt to escape prison.

You know what would thwart an escape? Lethal injection.

 

[Poisonshady313]

My problem with the "prison is enough" argument is that historically, it hasn't been.

Life doesn't really mean life... it means a minimum of 20 years (depending on what state you're in). Governors commute sentences they shouldn't. They grant clemency when they shouldn't. Prisoners have escaped. Prisoners have organized murders on the outside while they were in the inside. Prisoners have murdered other prisoners who are serving shorter sentences for lesser crimes. Prisoners have murdered prison guards.

The risk of wrongfully executing a person is regrettable, but minimal.
The risk of innocent people being wrongfully killed is greater when we refuse to execute murderers.

 

[Koldo]

See the last paragraph in post #125.

An air strike is not necessary to thwart an escape.
It is still murder.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Prisoners have escaped. Prisoners have organized murders on the outside while they were in the inside. Prisoners have murdered other prisoners who are serving shorter sentences for lesser crimes. Prisoners have murdered prison guards

Killing all sorts of criminals at different levels of severity would stop this, that doesn't make it right. Seeing as this is more of a problem in the states than anywhere else in the industrialized world, I have a feeling that we can do more prison reform than '**** it, just kill them' which, imo, is profoundly lazy.
I'd rather focus on things like for-profit prisons which create system loops of incarceration and corruption in prison guards, lobbyists and judges, serious study of techniques used in places like Scandinavia to reform inmates, and a serious look at our mental health system in and out of the Criminal Justice System.
I definitely do not see any reason to believe that capital punishment is an effective deterrent to crime, rather the opposites as it seems to create more mass shootings followed by suicide. What have they got to lose?

The risk of wrongfully executing a person is regrettable, but minimal.
The risk of innocent people being wrongfully killed is greater when we refuse to execute murderers.

Neverminding that we have no idea how 'minimal' it is, and that the number of exonerated should not be taken as number of innocent, the risk of executing innocents 'for the greater good' is a non-starter for me. To me that kind of utilitarianism just leads to half-assing.

 

[blü 2]

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

Unless of course you're executing the wrong person.

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

So how would you express your justification? Social cleansing?

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

Even innocent people, perhaps?

 

[Aupmanyav]

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

It is not the only punishment, it is the most serious punishment for equally serious crimes. There were all other kinds of punishment financial/physical/jail or as I said, 'Desh-Nikala', exile from a particular kingdom.

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

No it does not. Punishing wrong-doers is dharma. Kill only if it is a matter of 'dharma'.

 

[Jainarayan]

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

It’s all in the link. That’s why I put the link. The verses and purports are there. That’s the equivalent of capital punishment. I cited ancient Norse custom and law for revenge killing.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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.

Dirty hands is for the squeamish. Where a death sentence is given after due consideration of the case by a competent authority according to the laws of that society, then an execution does not remain dirty, it becomes dharma.