The death penalty. Are you against it or for it?

[Unveiled Artist]

If you refuse to consider the possibility that the accused is innocent, then you're refusing to deal with the ethics of the death penalty.

Any "warrant" for the death penalty is subject to some degree of error.

Are there other reasons to opposite it in addition to "what if the prisoner is innocent?"

I'm genuinely asking. That's the only argument I hear when talking against capitol punishment. That are less frequently using tax payers money or possible reformation.

 

[Curious George]

Debt... to who? Who benefits from the death of this person? It won't bring back his victim.

That depends on which philosophy you follow. Some would even say the perpetrator of the crime. Most would say society in general. Criminal court is not designed to "benefit" or provide remedy for the victim. Civil court does that.

In a country with a properly functioning penal system, capital punishment is no better at specific deterrence than life without parole is.

No, that is simply not true. But i didn't say "better at specifically deterring" i said a more pragmatic means of specific deterrence.

 

[Curious George]

... including a perceived right to retribution?

Of course, but i am not sure what you are aiming at here. The way you have used words here demonstrates a lack of understanding of how I have used related words. Have you misunderstood me?

 

[Curious George]

In other words, the 100% surefire way to get rid of murder and murderers is to remove all laws against killing people.

That is correct. A murder is an unlawful killing. If there is no unlawful killing, then there could be no murder.

But why would you be advocating for that?

 

[Curious George]

Are there other reasons to opposite it in addition to "what if the prisoner is innocent?"

I'm genuinely asking. That's the only argument I hear when talking against capitol punishment. That are less frequently using tax payers money or possible reformation.

Generally use of the death penalty is more costly.

Generally killing is supposed immoral.

Statistics don't show a correlation with general deterrence and death penalties.

And people can change.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That depends on which philosophy you follow.

We're talking about criminal law that applies to everyone, so you're apparently suggesting that everyone follow whatever philosophy you had in mind.

Some would even say the perpetrator of the crime.

Killing a murderer pays back a debt to the murderer?

If you want me to take this idea seriously, you'd have to explain how this would work.

Most would say society in general.

So what benefit does society get from this "payment"?

Criminal court is not designed to "benefit" or provide remedy for the victim. Civil court does that.

I know.

No, that is simply not true. But i didn't say "better at specifically deterring" i said a more pragmatic means of specific deterrence.

How is it "more pragmatic"?

And if "more pragmatic" doesn't translate to "better" in some way, why should we care?

 

[metis]

I am against the death penalty because I am pro-life, and the death penalty serves no purpose in today's world with there being prisons and jails except for purposes of revenge. Some Christians today only seemingly see "pro-life" in terms of abortion, but the reality is that there are many different areas that are also pro-life.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Generally use of the death penalty is more costly.

Generally killing is supposed immoral.

Statistics don't show a correlation with general deterrence and death penalties.

And people can change.

Do you think many use the morality as a primary reason?

For example, I don't base if CP is wrong morally because (if they connect this) of cost and possible innocence. Many moral defenses are by religious but I haven't heard support by the non religious.

Thanks for answering by the way.

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailer. Just talk. I don't read bold.

Sorry, the definitions came that way off the internet....
There is nothing to talk about because I do not want to argue about this. I have my opinions and you have yours, and never the twain shall meet.

 

[Trailblazer]

If you refuse to consider the possibility that the accused is innocent, then you're refusing to deal with the ethics of the death penalty.

I did not say that I refuse to consider the possibility that the accused is innocent.
I said that I believe the death penalty is ethical when warranted.

Any "warrant" for the death penalty is subject to some degree of error.

No, it is not.

 

[Trailblazer]

In other words, the 100% surefire way to get rid of murder and murderers is to remove all laws against killing people.

No, the only surefire way to get rid of murder and murderers would be to remove all evil people who commit the crime of murder.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Sorry, the definitions came that way off the internet....
There is nothing to talk about because I do not want to argue about this. I have my opinions and you have yours, and never the twain shall meet.

It wasn't an argument. I was replying to another and you just copy and pasted def out of nowhere. Kind of like throwing up a red stop sign while I'm driving on someone else's street.

What was the point you were making in that post?

Even if I wanted to argue, I have no clue what you wrote and your point even if I wanted to address it with that intent.

 

[Koldo]

If murder is wrong, then capital punishment is wrong.

I don't quite understand the rationale behind this. Why do you think this way?
How does murder being wrong leads to capital punishment also being wrong?
I would only see that as the case if by murder we meant every single instance of human killing.

If we think people should have an unalienable right to life, then capital punishment is illegal.
Some people don't give a rat's donkey for human rights. Civilized people call them barbarians.

No right is absolute though.

 

[Kooky]

No, the only surefire way to get rid of murder and murderers would be to remove all evil people who commit the crime of murder.

By definition, murder is illegal killing. If we made all killing legal, then there would be no murder.

 

[Koldo]

I'm sorry for your friend's daughter.

How would it serve justice to kill him? That's the real question.

In a society that values liberty, any infringements on liberty - e.g. killing someone as the punishment for a crime - must be justified.

... so what's the justification? What legitimate goal do you think the justice system should have for this person that isn't served by life imprisonment?

It is a perception of justice.
Do you think it is just for people to be punished by their crimes? Do you see justice in punishing people for doing evil?
If you don't, it is gonna be pretty hard to explain why many of us see capital punishment as the proper way to deal with murderers.

 

[Kooky]

It is a perception of justice.
Do you think it is just for people to be punished by their crimes? Do you see justice in punishing people for doing evil?
If you don't, it is gonna be pretty hard to explain why many of us see capital punishment as the proper way to deal with murderers.

Nah, it's really simple. It's the archaic idea of cosmic balance - one life taken must be balanced with another life taken.

In ancient times and cultures, before the advent of strong central governments, people would often deal with this directly via familial or clan-based retribution; a kill had to be answered with a kill, but if people did not agree over the retribution being justified, this could spiral into counter-retributions and counter-counter retributions, in potentially endless spirals of violence, i.e. blood feuds.

One of the first powers the first kings and queens wrested from the people they ruled over was the power to speak the law, the power to judge in such disputes, as a neutral party with the power over life and death.

 

[We Never Know]

You didn't answer my question.

The justice would be him having the same life as the little girl, none.

 

[Koldo]

Nah, it's really simple. It's the archaic idea of cosmic balance - one life taken must be balanced with another life taken.

In ancient times and cultures, before the advent of strong central governments, people would often deal with this directly via familial or clan-based retribution; a kill had to be answered with a kill, but if people did not agree over the retribution being justified, this could spiral into counter-retributions and counter-counter retributions, in potentially endless spirals of violence, i.e. blood feuds.

One of the first powers the first kings and queens wrested from the people they ruled over was the power to speak the law, the power to judge in such disputes, as a neutral party with the power over life and death.

It is more like: If you don't feel it is right to kill murderers, if you don't feel it in your bones, how do I explain what it is like to you?
How do I explain what it is like to feel that not punishing a murderer is almost as bad as murdering someone?

 

[Trailblazer]

It wasn't an argument. I was replying to another and you just copy and pasted def out of nowhere. Kind of like throwing up a red stop sign while I'm driving on someone else's street.

What was the point you were making in that post?

Even if I wanted to argue, I have no clue what you wrote and your point even if I wanted to address it with that intent.

You said: If a murderer kills another murderer it's still murder. Innocence doesn't matter.

I posted the definition of murderer because a murderer is one who commits the crime of murder
I posted the definition of crime because a crime is an illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government.

A person who carries out the death penalty is by definition not a murderer because he is not committing a crime.
He is punishing someone for a crime that was committed.

Definition of murderer
: one who murders especially : one who commits the crime of murder
Definition of MURDERER.

Definition of crime
1 : an illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government especially : a gross violation of law
Definition of CRIME

 

[Trailblazer]

By definition, murder is illegal killing. If we made all killing legal, then there would be no murder.

True.