The Death Penalty

[+Xausted]

Sorry, I did not see this earlier.

Unitarian Universalists affirm and promote Seven Principles. The First Principle is the inherent worth and dignity of every person. As a denomination, we are against the death penalty because it violates the First Principle. But because UU affirms freedom of conscience, individual UUs are free to disagree with what the majority of UUs decide. However, we can still ask them how they square their disagreements with the principles.

Thankyou

 

[Poisonshady313]

I'm for it. On several levels.

To get this one out of the way, the religion level: Whomever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed. Genesis 9:6.

Now... to the constitution. If you ask me, "Cruel and unusual" is subjective.... Cruel moreso than unusual... because "unusual" is mostly a matter of how often it's done.

If something is cruel but usual... it isn't cruel AND unusual... personally, for those who kill and/or mutilate one or more people, an injection to the arm or several thousand volts of electricity is far from cruel.

Also.. regarding the 14th amendment:

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This tells me that WITH due process of law, any State may indeed deprive a person of life, liberty, or property (obviously not in that order).

In general... a nation governed by laws of right and wrong must punish wrongdoers... otherwise, calling something "wrong" is empty and meaningless.

So.. the murderer who murders in prison... how do you punish him... more prison? That's like splashing someone in a swimming pool... they're already wet... you're not really doing anything.

Murderers have proven that they have no regard for the law or the people it is designed to protect. They are unworthy of the oxygen they breathe. They are unworthy of the food that my tax dollars pay for. The medicine that is used to treat them should be going to law abiding citizens who need it.

I know people who make just enough money to not be thrown out of their house and to eat on a daily basis, and need medicine that costs several hundred dollars... and they have to do without medicine because they can't afford it. Yet the man who kidnapped an entire family, raped the women, mutilated the men, then killed and dismembered the women in front of their children.... they get medicine, and they don't have to pay for it.

Is that justice?

In my personal opinion, I think the methods of execution should be:
Firing squad
Electrocution
Guillotine
One gunshot to the back of the head.

The use of any of the above to be determined according to the severity of the crime for which the condemned is being executed.

It should be publicized, and on the television screen, scrolling across the screen continuously should be the crime for which the person is being executed for. The victim's name, age, and manner of death, so that the whole world knows exactly why this person is being executed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm for it. On several levels.

To get this one out of the way, the religion level: Whomever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed. Genesis 9:6.

Now... to the constitution. If you ask me, "Cruel and unusual" is subjective.... Cruel moreso than unusual... because "unusual" is mostly a matter of how often it's done.

If something is cruel but usual... it isn't cruel AND unusual... personally, for those who kill and/or mutilate one or more people, an injection to the arm or several thousand volts of electricity is far from cruel.

Also.. regarding the 14th amendment:

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This tells me that WITH due process of law, any State may indeed deprive a person of life, liberty, or property (obviously not in that order).

I assume you consider the Genesis verse to be part of God's Law, so I won't push you on that one, but as far as the 14th Amendment goes, it's human law. It reflects consensus of society (or at least the elected representatives of it), not necessarily right and wrong. This makes any argument based on it an exercise in circular reasoning:

- most of us believe that capital punishment is okay with due process;
- therefore, we should incorporate this belief into the supreme law of the land.
- the supreme law of the land says that capital punishment is okay with due process;
- therefore, we should consider it okay.

In general... a nation governed by laws of right and wrong must punish wrongdoers... otherwise, calling something "wrong" is empty and meaningless.

In terms of the law, "wrong" should be considered empty and meaningless. There are plenty areas where morality and the law diverge. The test of whether or not something should be illegal should be harm, IMO, not immorality.

So.. the murderer who murders in prison... how do you punish him... more prison? That's like splashing someone in a swimming pool... they're already wet... you're not really doing anything.

You can increase the inmate's sentence. You can deprive him of privileges.

You can also recognize that a person is beyond rational motivation based on punishment and deterrence, and just place him somewhere where he cannot do more harm.

Murderers have proven that they have no regard for the law or the people it is designed to protect. They are unworthy of the oxygen they breathe. They are unworthy of the food that my tax dollars pay for. The medicine that is used to treat them should be going to law abiding citizens who need it.

"Unworthy" or not, this is a burden that the State takes on by imprisoning them.

I know people who make just enough money to not be thrown out of their house and to eat on a daily basis, and need medicine that costs several hundred dollars... and they have to do without medicine because they can't afford it. Yet the man who kidnapped an entire family, raped the women, mutilated the men, then killed and dismembered the women in front of their children.... they get medicine, and they don't have to pay for it.

Is that justice?

No, it's not. The people who need medicine should have it as well.

I should point out, though that the State has an explicit duty of care toward people in its custody, including prisoners; this isn't necessarily the case for people in society at large (though this depends what country you're in and what approach it takes to the role of government).

In my personal opinion, I think the methods of execution should be:
Firing squad
Electrocution
Guillotine
One gunshot to the back of the head.

Why?

What would you or society get out of murdering murderers, besides creating hypocrisy?

 

[Poisonshady313]

I assume you consider the Genesis verse to be part of God's Law, so I won't push you on that one, but as far as the 14th Amendment goes, it's human law. It reflects consensus of society (or at least the elected representatives of it), not necessarily right and wrong. This makes any argument based on it an exercise in circular reasoning:

- most of us believe that capital punishment is okay with due process;
- therefore, we should incorporate this belief into the supreme law of the land.
- the supreme law of the land says that capital punishment is okay with due process;
- therefore, we should consider it okay.

How about: The people who drafted the 14th amendment accepted that the death penalty was the expected punishment for those who merited, and made sure to restrict the imposition of said penalty to those who were provided due process... and that when writing this amendment, they obviously figured it was not in contradiction with the rest of the constitution.

In terms of the law, "wrong" should be considered empty and meaningless. There are plenty areas where morality and the law diverge. The test of whether or not something should be illegal should be harm, IMO, not immorality.

The way I'm using the word, wrong = illegal. I'm not trying to mix morality with law.

You can increase the inmate's sentence. You can deprive him of privileges.

Empty and meaningless for someone already serving a life sentence.

You can also recognize that a person is beyond rational motivation based on punishment and deterrence, and just place him somewhere where he cannot do more harm.

In a box six feet under is a place where he cannot do more harm.

"Unworthy" or not, this is a burden that the State takes on by imprisoning them.

In a government of the people, by the people, for the people.... being a person, I don't appreciate taking on the burden of paying for the meals and medicine of murderers. Especially when there are starving law abiding citizens in this country.

I should point out, though that the State has an explicit duty of care toward people in its custody, including prisoners; this isn't necessarily the case for people in society at large (though this depends what country you're in and what approach it takes to the role of government).

That's true... but that seems rather unfair, that people who are being punished are being taken care of, while people who play by the rules are subject to the hand that they're dealt.... even if that hand includes being murdered by someone who's going to spend several decades being fed, clothed, protected, and medicated by the taxpayers of that state.

Why?

What would you or society get out of murdering murderers, besides creating hypocrisy?

Executing murderers isn't murder.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I skipped over this point in my previous post:

I'm for it. On several levels.

To get this one out of the way, the religion level: Whomever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed. Genesis 9:6.

Doesn't this verse condemn the executioner just as much as the murderer he executes?

 

[Poisonshady313]

I skipped over this point in my previous post:


Doesn't this verse condemn the executioner just as much as the murderer he executes?

At face value, it might appear so. However, being commanded to execute such a punishment, you get the idea that the executioner is justified in his role, therefore not subject to the condemnation of the verse.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How about: The people who drafted the 14th amendment accepted that the death penalty was the expected punishment for those who merited, and made sure to restrict the imposition of said penalty to those who were provided due process... and that when writing this amendment, they obviously figured it was not in contradiction with the rest of the constitution.

So... basically, a mixture of argumentum ad populum and appeal to authority?

The way I'm using the word, wrong = illegal. I'm not trying to mix morality with law.

Wrong = morality
illegal = law

It seems you're trying to do precisely that.

Empty and meaningless for someone already serving a life sentence.

So... because beating the dead horse more does nothing, we should set the horse on fire to get it to do what we want, right?

In a box six feet under is a place where he cannot do more harm.

So is a cell by himself, alive. Since the less extreme measure fulfils the desired purpose, what reason is there to take the more extreme course of action?

In a government of the people, by the people, for the people.... being a person, I don't appreciate taking on the burden of paying for the meals and medicine of murderers. Especially when there are starving law abiding citizens in this country.

In the American system, people are responsible for their own circumstances. It's up to the law-abiding citizens to feed themselves. Prisioners have had that ability taken away from them, therefore the duty falls to those who have taken it away.

That's true... but that seems rather unfair, that people who are being punished are being taken care of, while people who play by the rules are subject to the hand that they're dealt.... even if that hand includes being murdered by someone who's going to spend several decades being fed, clothed, protected, and medicated by the taxpayers of that state.

This sounds to be just as strong an argument for setting murderers free as it does for killing them.

Executing murderers isn't murder.

How is it not?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

At face value, it might appear so. However, being commanded to execute such a punishment, you get the idea that the executioner is justified in his role, therefore not subject to the condemnation of the verse.

Why do you interpret the verse as a command? It seems to me to be more a description of a logical consequence: it isn't in the form "you must do this", it's in the form "this shall happen".

If God has told you that this consequence will come about, why do you need to help it along?

Also, even if you do take it as a command, you're reading things into the text that aren't there. It says that anyone who sheds the blood of man will have his own blood shed by man. Executing a person, however much it's justified, is shedding the blood of man. By interpreting the verse the way you are, it seems to me like you're inferring what God "meant" to say, even though it contradicts the literal meaning of the text.

 

[Poisonshady313]

So... basically, a mixture of argumentum ad populum and appeal to authority?

My assertion isn't whether they were right or wrong. My assertion is that they implied that with due process, a state may deprive a person of life.

So... because beating the dead horse more does nothing, we should set the horse on fire to get it to do what we want, right?

A man in prison is not dead. Adding numbers to his life sentence does nothing more than waste ink and paper.

So is a cell by himself, alive. Since the less extreme measure fulfils the desired purpose, what reason is there to take the more extreme course of action?

Look up Lemuel Smith. Then understand that he's not the only lifer to ever murder someone while serving a life sentence.

In the American system, people are responsible for their own circumstances. It's up to the law-abiding citizens to feed themselves. Prisioners have had that ability taken away from them, therefore the duty falls to those who have taken it away.

Fine then. I still believe that capital offenders deserve capital punishment.

This sounds to be just as strong an argument for setting murderers free as it does for killing them.

killing murderers prevents murderers from murdering innocent people.

How is it not?

Murder is unlawful. Capital punishment, being carried out in accordance with State law, is by definition lawful.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Why do you interpret the verse as a command? It seems to me to be more a description of a logical consequence: it isn't in the form "you must do this", it's in the form "this shall happen".

If God has told you that this consequence will come about, why do you need to help it along?

Also, even if you do take it as a command, you're reading things into the text that aren't there. It says that anyone who sheds the blood of man will have his own blood shed by man. Executing a person, however much it's justified, is shedding the blood of man. By interpreting the verse the way you are, it seems to me like you're inferring what God "meant" to say, even though it contradicts the literal meaning of the text.

God is setting up the basic rules and regulations:

1. And God blessed Noah and his sons, and He said to them: "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.

2. And your fear and your dread shall be upon all the beasts of the earth and upon all the fowl of the heaven; upon everything that creeps upon the ground and upon all the fish of the sea, [for] they have been given into your hand.

3. Every moving thing that lives shall be yours to eat; like the green vegetation, I have given you everything.

4. But, flesh with its soul, its blood, you shall not eat.

5. But your blood, of your souls, I will demand [an account]; from the hand of every beast I will demand it, and from the hand of man, from the hand of each man, his brother, I will demand the soul of man.

6. Whoever sheds the blood of man through man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God He made man.

7. And you, be fruitful and multiply; swarm upon the earth and multiply thereon."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Look up Lemuel Smith. Then understand that he's not the only lifer to ever murder someone while serving a life sentence.

A prisoner has to have access to other inmates to murder them. Deprive them of that, and your worries in this regard go away.

Fine then. I still believe that capital offenders deserve capital punishment.

And you're free to believe that. I just don't think you've given a good justification for that position.

killing murderers prevents murderers from murdering innocent people.

Technically, so does killing all the innocent people. Either way, we still have to exercise some discernment about whether the method we choose to acheive our aim is a valid one.

Murder is unlawful. Capital punishment, being carried out in accordance with State law, is by definition lawful.

Law can be changed. Capital punishment is illegal where I am; would you have the same feelings here in Canada?

 

[Poisonshady313]

A prisoner has to have access to other inmates to murder them. Deprive them of that, and your worries in this regard go away.

Until they begin to murder prison guards. It happens.

Law can be changed. Capital punishment is illegal where I am; would you have the same feelings here in Canada?

I think the death penalty should be made legal wherever it is illegal.

We should be punishing criminals... not babysitting them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God is setting up the basic rules and regulations:

Didn't really answer my question, but this gives me a good opportunity to illustrate the difference I'm talking about:

1. And God blessed Noah and his sons, and He said to them: "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.

This one's a command. We can tell by the use of the impertative: "be fruitful", "multiply", "fill the earth".

2. And your fear and your dread shall be upon all the beasts of the earth and upon all the fowl of the heaven; upon everything that creeps upon the ground and upon all the fish of the sea, [for] they have been given into your hand.

This one's a description, not a command. Again, we can tell by the grammar: it describes a situation; it doesn't tell us to do anything... this verse tells us that beasts and fowl will fear and dread man; it doesn't tell us to go out and frighten the livestock.

Skipping ahead a bit, look at verse 6:

6. Whoever sheds the blood of man through man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God He made man.

Which is this closer in structure to? Verse 1 or verse 2?

I'd say verse 2. Both are descriptions of what will happen: "fear... shall be on the beasts"; "through man shall his blood be shed". The direct commands in the style of verse 1 are absent from both verse 2 and verse 6.

So... if you really do think that verse 6 is a command, do you apply the same standard to verse 2? How many beasts have you caused fear and dread to be upon lately?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Until they begin to murder prison guards. It happens.

Can you provide a single example of a prisoner, known to be a threat to the guards and other inmates, held under the heaviest security available and separated from the general population, has ever murdered a guard?

I think the death penalty should be made legal wherever it is illegal.

So the current state of the law isn't really at issue then, is it?

We should be punishing criminals... not babysitting them.

- prison is not babysitting.
- punishment for no valid purpose is unjust.

 

[Draka]

Question for those discussing this: What about catharsis for the victims or loved ones of the victims? Some would argue that the death penalty helps to bring about a sort of catharsis for those so drastically affected by the perpetrator of the crime.

Some might call this "revenge", some might call it "coming to terms". Where does this "catharsis" fall in your reasoning in this matter?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Question for those discussing this: What about catharsis for the victims or loved ones of the victims? Some would argue that the death penalty helps to bring about a sort of catharsis for those so drastically affected by the perpetrator of the crime.

Some might call this "revenge", some might call it "coming to terms". Where does this "catharsis" fall in your reasoning in this matter?

If capital punisment is an effective means of acheiving catharsis, I think it's secondary to human life, even the life of a murderer.

However, I doubt it's particularily effective at this, and I think that there are likely other methods to "come to terms" (some form of counseling, maybe?) that can be even more effective than capital punishment that don't involve killing people.

Frankly, I find the idea of killing a human being (even a dispicable human being) to make someone feel better to be abhorrent.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Question for those discussing this: What about catharsis for the victims or loved ones of the victims? Some would argue that the death penalty helps to bring about a sort of catharsis for those so drastically affected by the perpetrator of the crime.

Some might call this "revenge", some might call it "coming to terms". Where does this "catharsis" fall in your reasoning in this matter?

It doesn't. It's not "The victim's family against John Doe"... it's "The State against John Doe". It's not a civil case in which only the party which suffered a loss can claim damages. The laws of the state were violated, and it is in the interest of the state that such a person is dealt with accordingly.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree with the person who said these things should be televised with the crime listed on the screen....Maybe even a public hanging would set an example to some of the child molesters and rapists. It may sound harsh, but if this was your child or your family what would you want? If they walk they are free to repeat their crime.

Everything I've read about violent criminals seems to indicate that appealing to rational self-interest (e.g. teaching them "if you commit this crime, you will die") don't really work as deterrents. Any "example" like what you describe would be about public bloodlust, not crime prevention.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Everything I've read about violent criminals seems to indicate that appealing to rational self-interest (e.g. teaching them "if you commit this crime, you will die") don't really work as deterrents. Any "example" like what you describe would be about public bloodlust, not crime prevention.

A corpse commits no crime.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Everything I've read about violent criminals seems to indicate that appealing to rational self-interest (e.g. teaching them "if you commit this crime, you will die") don't really work as deterrents.

This is especially true when their answer is "Yeah, right" or "not me". When it becomes less of a threat and more of a reality... it might become a deterrent.