USA Death Penalty

[McBell]

A crime that goes unpunished is as much an injustice as an innocent person punished.

I agree.
I have not seen anyone in this thread even imply otherwise.

That is true for various crimes, not just capital crimes.

I agree
I have not seen anyone in this thread even imply otherwise.

Not prosecuting theft crimes because an innocent person could be wrongly convicted is also wrong.

I agree
I have not seen anyone in this thread even imply otherwise.

But you don't argue against that.

I m guessing that no one is arguing against it because no one has made any of those claims.

Nor do you argue against other non-capital wrong convictions that lead to death.

What punishment(s) other than the death penalty "lead to death"?
Surely you are not going to try to conflate a life sentence with the death penalty....

Not having a death penalty could be argued to be immoral.

Start a thread.
let us see how well that argument pans out.

The state takes lives in many ways. You don't argue against having a military despite the innocent people that die in it.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

None of them were mass murderers, serial murderers, or terroristic murderers, though.

Unfortunately those are a very small proportion of those being executed.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

A miscarriage of justice in a non-death penalty case that causes a death is just as irreversible. If you apply your rationale by that standard the government ability to legislate would be hamstrung.

Not at all, most 1st world countries cope very well with legislation and with abolishing the death penalty.
It is true that a small proportion of prisoners commit suicide, but.so does a proportion of the general population.
All legislation by its nature takes into account it's effect on the population at large, including safety and health issues. This is not a problem to well draughted legislation, it is part of the process in a well governed country. And justice system.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The state takes lives in many ways. You don't argue against having a military despite the innocent people that die in it.

That is not related.

However there are many laws about the conduct of war and the killing of civilians.
In a majority of free countries conscious objectors are not required to fight.

Israel has been found guilty of killing civilians in the present conflict, and most likely genocide.
War crimes are in themselves sometimes punishable by death in an international court.

 

[Heyo]

War crimes are in themselves sometimes punishable by death in an international court.

The ICC and other UN courts down hand down death penalties, in accord with the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

 

[Shaul]

yes, there is.
But for some reason those supporting the death penalty refuse to offer up a number.

Those against the death penalty propose the only acceptable number is zero.
They have absolutely no problem in offering up a number.
The do not hesitate one bit offering up the number zero.

But for some reason, those who support the death penalty are completely unable to offer up a number.

The number of any such deaths is a qualitative aspect, not a quantitative aspect. So the discussing the number is indeterminant.

 

[Shaul]

Yes, but how about the frequency, right?

In Jewish history, the death penalty mostly, but not entirely, became a thing of the past, generally now reserved for only mass murderers and repeat murderers.

You glossed over the fact that it is support by Torah which derives its authority from HaShem. Therefore if you acknowledge halacha you can only oppose the death penalty by denying its authority.

 

[McBell]

The number of any such deaths is a qualitative aspect, not a quantitative aspect. So the discussing the number is indeterminant.

So, why is it YOU are afraid to give a number?
Of course, not a single person in support of the death penalty has answered that question either.

 

[Revoltingest]

Apparently you are not yet "getting it". A crime that goes unpunished is as much an injustice as an innocent person punished. That is true for various crimes, not just capital crimes. Not prosecuting theft crimes because an innocent person could be wrongly convicted is also wrong. But you don't argue against that. Nor do you argue against other non-capital wrong convictions that lead to death. Not having a death penalty could be argued to be immoral.

The state takes lives in many ways. You don't argue against having a military despite the innocent people that die in it.

Suppose that an innocent person is convicted of
a capital crime. And it happened because of
perjured testimony by a cop, or prosecutorial
misconduct (eg, hiding exculpating evidence).
Should the cop or prosecutor be executed
for murder of the innocent defendant?

 

[Shaul]

So, why is it YOU are afraid to give a number?
Of course, not a single person in support of the death penalty has answered that question either.

I literally just posted why a number shouldn't be guessed.

 

[McBell]

I literally just posted why a number shouldn't be guessed.

You forgot to answer the question in the post you replied to:

why is it YOU are afraid to give a number?​

​

 

[Shaul]

You forgot to answer the question in the post you replied to:

why is it YOU are afraid to give a number?​

​

I am not "afraid". As I have explained, the number is not determinable. Why do you want a number that isn't determinable?

 

[McBell]

I am not "afraid". As I have explained, the number is not determinable. Why do you want a number that isn't determinable?

Funny how the only ones who are unable to determine the acceptable number of deaths are those in support of the death penalty.

Do you disagree with the number proposed by those opposed to the death penalty?

 

[PureX]

No that's you.

Killing another for killing another (Hammurabi's code basically)is the only knee jerk reaction here.

That's not justice.

Edited for ****e spelling

Justice is fiction. I’m interested in security.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Justice is fiction. I’m interested in security.

Okay. So why not just put all violent criminals to death? Why are you only in favour of it for your "absolutely definitely gonna kill again" people?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Justice is fiction. I’m interested in security.

Even if that results in killing Many innocent people?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Justice is fiction. I’m interested in security.

The judicial system is based on the application of the law. It I rarely concerned with mercy or the further ramifications of it's decision.
The law is established by politicians who are not concerned with justice but with the vagueness of public opinion on their hold on office.

 

[PureX]

Unfortunately those are a very small proportion of those being executed.

Those are the only people we should be executing. And not for vengeance (justice), but for our collective security.

 

[PureX]

Okay. So why not just put all violent criminals to death?

Because they don't pose an ongoing existential threat.

Why are you only in favour of it for your "absolutely definitely gonna kill again" people?

Because they pose an ongoing existential threat to every other human on Earth. And we do not have the right to impose that threat on everyone else for the sake of our own personal moral imperatives.

 

[PureX]

Even if that results in killing Many innocent people?

It won't.