The Death Penalty

[Enoch07]

Though life may not be fair, I don't see that as an excuse to not try to make things better.

Tell that to familys of murder victims. You are making nothing better for them.

 

[Nepenthe]

But how about on a principle level, of a guilty murderer, I'm sure you said before that regardless of him being guilty of murder, you still wouldn't want him executed because it's a violation, right?

Yes, as abhorrent as murder is, and as much as my knee-jerk emotional response to murderers would be to condemn them, I do not think the state is justified in punishing anyone by death. I do think it's a human rights violation. This is not synonymous with supporting or condoning or somehow celebrating the crime or criminal at all.

 

[Aquitaine]

Yes, as abhorrent as murder is, and as much as my knee-jerk emotional response to murderers would be to condemn them, I do not think the state is justified in punishing anyone by death. I do think it's a human rights violation. This is not synonymous with supporting or condoning or somehow celebrating the crime or criminal at all.

But in that case, you're either taking one of two stances (correct me if I'm wrong):

1) That murder isn't horrific enough to warrant the death of the guilty involved.

2) That Human life in general is too valuable, and regardless should never be forcefully taken away, even if it's a murderer being executed by the State.

I personally think you're with the latter, am I right?

 

[Nepenthe]

But in that case, you're either taking one of two stances (correct me if I'm wrong):

1) That murder isn't horrific enough to warrant the death of the guilty involved.

2) That Human life in general is too valuable, and regardless should never be forcefully taken away, even if it's a murderer being executed by the State.

I personally think you're with the latter, am I right?

Door # 2.
Not only do I think human life valuable, I'm hesitant to trust the state to decide death even if I didn't think life were valuable to any degree.

 

[Enoch07]

Yes, as abhorrent as murder is, and as much as my knee-jerk emotional response to murderers would be to condemn them, I do not think the state is justified in punishing anyone by death. I do think it's a human rights violation. This is not synonymous with supporting or condoning or somehow celebrating the crime or criminal at all.

The murderer took away the victim's human right to live. The murderer should have his human right to live taken as well. It is only fair. By allowing a murderer to live you are saying the murderer is more deserving of human rights than the victim. In no world under no circumstance should this ever be allowed to be true.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I wasn't trying to say that... at all. I may not fully agree with you, but that's no reason to put words in my mouth.

Never did say you said that, or even were trying to say that. Don't you go putting words in my mouth.

Though life may not be fair, I don't see that as an excuse to not try to make things better.

Sure. I just don't figure that getting rid of the death penalty will make things better.

We should be executing more murderers, because they don't deserve the three meals a day that you and I pay for.

 

[Aquitaine]

Door # 2.

Not only do I think human life valuable, I'm hesitant to trust the state to decide death even if I didn't think life were valuable to any degree.

Well then in that case, you kind of are cherishing the lives and Rights of Murderers.

If we were to put on Human Right Goggles, and look at an innocent Husband & Wive, and a Murderer. I'd see 2 people who should have Human Rights and one person who should have none, and who is inferior in terms of value.
You on the other hand, would see all 3 of them as equal, in regards to their value of life and their Human Rights, right?

So there must be something that the murderer has done to make you see his life and Rights as equal in value to the Husband and Wife.

The only way I can see it possible for you to do that, is either you generally prefer the murderer over the couple, or you ignore what he's done.

Therefore, IMO you are cherishing the lives of murderers over the lives of innocents: by giving them equal Rights and value despite what they have done.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Door # 2.
Not only do I think human life valuable, I'm hesitant to trust the state to decide death even if I didn't think life were valuable to any degree.

Name me one government institution more carefully and accurately carried out than the death penalty.


How many innocent people do you assert have been executed in the last 33 years?

 

[misanthropic_clown]

Do families of victims generally call for the death of convicted murderers?

 

[Nepenthe]

By allowing a murderer to live you are saying the murderer is more deserving of human rights than the victim.

No, I am saying the government should not be responsible for deciding an irrevertible punishment. No more or less deserving status is even implied.

Well then in that case, you kind of are cherishing the lives and Rights of Murderers.

If we were to put on Human Right Goggles, and look at an innocent Husband & Wive, and a Murderer. I'd see 2 people who should have Human Rights and one person who should have none, and who is inferior in terms of value.
You on the other hand, would see all 3 of them as equal, in regards to their value of life and their Human Rights, right?

In regards to the state determining whether they live or die, yes, I see them as equal.

So there must be something that the murderer has done to make you see his life and Rights as equal in value to the Husband and Wife.

Nothing they've done, just their mere existance as Homo sapiens and a reluctance to allow government to inflict such an overwhelming punishment.

The only way I can see it possible for you to do that, is either you generally prefer the murderer over the couple, or you ignore what he's done.

Therefore, IMO you are cherishing the lives of murderers over the lives of innocents: by giving them equal Rights and value despite what they have done.

No, there's no implication of preference. I don't oppose punishment, incarceration, etc.; I oppose the state having the authority to kill its citizens.

Name me one government institution more carefully and accurately carried out than the death penalty.

I'm not sure. I suppose it depends on the specific parameters you put up by more carefully and accurately. I'm not sure how this pertains to "Not only do I think human life valuable, I'm hesitant to trust the state to decide death even if I didn't think life were valuable to any degree."

How many innocent people do you assert have been executed in the last 33 years?

There's no way to even argue the numbers- the data just isn't there. There's about 8 to 10 cases I've read of where the evidence was presented after the executions but there's just no way to know definitively.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Do families of victims generally call for the death of convicted murderers?

Some do, some don't. I wouldn't generalize.

 

[Poisonshady313]

There's no way to even argue the numbers- the data just isn't there. There's about 8 to 10 cases I've read of where the evidence was presented after the executions but there's just no way to know definitively.

Makes it that much harder to make a claim regarding the possible execution of innocents.

 

[Aquitaine]

No, I am saying the government should not be responsible for deciding an irrevertible punishment. No more or less deserving status is even implied.

In regards to the state determining whether they live or die, yes, I see them as equal.


Nothing they've done, just their mere existance as Homo sapiens and a reluctance to allow government to inflict such an overwhelming punishment.


No, there's no implication of preference. I don't oppose punishment, incarceration, etc.; I oppose the state having the authority to kill its citizens.

I'm not sure. I suppose it depends on the specific parameters you put up by more carefully and accurately. I'm not sure how this pertains to "Not only do I think human life valuable, I'm hesitant to trust the state to decide death even if I didn't think life were valuable to any degree."

There's no way to even argue the numbers- the data just isn't there. There's about 8 to 10 cases I've read of where the evidence was presented after the executions but there's just no way to know definitively.

But this is a question of principle, in a hypothetical society with their own state. Do you object to your State doing so, or the concpet of a state in general doing so?

Besides, this is about specific people being killed, in specific cases: murderers who've been found guilty. It doesn't neccessarily mean the State is gona execute innocent people at random.

So then why do you care if the State execute a convicted murderer?

 

[Poisonshady313]

I wonder how many lifers are exonerated each year.

 

[England my lionheart]

I am saying that the need for revenge is an understandable emotion, but it doesn't make it right. If someone can be rehabilitated they should be. If the funds that are used to punish are routed to help instead, the recidivism rate drops, oddly there is no evidence to support , what would seem like the logical idea, that the more people are locked up the less crime there is.

The baby P. case was a chilling indictment of the British social services, which are underfunded and overburdened.

There were 3 adults in the baby P case, all of them as guilty as the next but not all of them killed the child. So is that justice 3 people with equal contribution to the death of the child but only one would be executed, provided you could conclusively prove which one gave the fatal blow. What about the children who murdered Jamie Bolger, should they have been executed ?

They are accessories to the fact and so all should be punished the same,as for rehabilitating why even try,how would you even know the murderer has been succesfully rehabilitated and how would you feel if he/she kills again.
I will agree that the death penalty does'nt deter every would be murderer but i don't see it as a deterent but more a consequence and thats what the death penalty is,if you plan and carry out a murder and convicted of the crime then you should suffer the consequence

 

[monta]

They are accessories to the fact and so all should be punished the same,as for rehabilitating why even try,how would you even know the murderer has been succesfully rehabilitated and how would you feel if he/she kills again.
I will agree that the death penalty does'nt deter every would be murderer but i don't see it as a deterent but more a consequence and thats what the death penalty is,if you plan and carry out a murder and convicted of the crime then you should suffer the consequence

To be an accessory to the fact you have to contribute to the act that led to the childs death, having beaten the child or failing to act while someone else did in their presence prior to the actual event that lead to the childs death, would not be enough.

 

[Enoch07]

No, I am saying the government should not be responsible for deciding an irrevertible punishment. No more or less deserving status is even implied.

You are implying it though, even if inadvertently. By allowing them to live you are inadvertently spitting in the face of the victim. And the government does not make that decision. The law does. The government enforces the law or the people will. For instance: Someone murders my child or wife. I would burn this whole world to the ground, if that is what it took to bring their murderer to justice. This is why we must allow and indeed demand that the government carries out the death penalty. The only difference is the government does it, it is legal and humane, If the people do it, it is illegal and only creates more problems.

 

[Nepenthe]

Makes it that much harder to make a claim regarding the possible execution of innocents.

Sure. I don't recall claiming it didn't or focusing on that as a point. :sarcastic

But this is a question of principle, in a hypothetical society with their own state. Do you object to your State doing so, or the concpet of a state in general doing so?

Both.

Besides, this is about specific people being killed, in specific cases: murderers who've been found guilty. It doesn't neccessarily mean the State is gona execute innocent people at random.

So then why do you care if the State execute a convicted murderer?

Of course. That has no bearing on my opposition; I'd quote the same arguments I stated before in response to your hypotheticals.

You are implying it though, even if inadvertently. By allowing them to live you are inadvertently spitting in the face of the victim.

Not at all. I could use an argument from emotion as well and say that the state executing someone is an offense to the memory of the victim. In fact, family members of loved ones who've been murdered have made similar emotive points. That's why emotional arguments have little bearing.

And the government does not make that decision. The law does. The government enforces the law or the people will.

For instance: Someone murders my child or wife. I would burn this whole world to the ground, if that is what it took to bring their murderer to justice.

I'd be elbow deep in the blood of anyone who hurt my wife or son- what does that have to do with capital punishment though???
Nah, I kid, maybe wrist deep.

 

[Enoch07]

I'd be elbow deep in the blood of anyone who hurt my wife or son- what does that have to do with capital punishment though???
Nah, I kid, maybe wrist deep.

I guess my whole point was we have to allow the government to do it to ensure humane execution and preservation of life. If we carry out vengeance on our own against murderers, it becomes a big bloody mess, because the murderer kills my wife, I kill the murderer, the murderers wife kills me, my son kills the murderers wife, the murderers son kills my son, my cousin kills the murderers son, and on and on and on forever.

The government takes the care of all that. The government arrest and convicts murderer, murderer is executed. End of Story, no need for all the retributive acts.

 

[Aquitaine]

Nepenthe, is it just the "state" that you have a problem with executing murderers, or is it the idea of a convicted killer veing executed in general, that you don't agree with - regardless of who executes him/her?