Capital Punishment: Always an Error, or only Sometimes?

[Trakar]

Even in its protective role?

If you have a specific example that you feel I may not be considering but you would like me to add to such considerations, please specify.

In general, I do not feel that the state ever, for any reason, has the right to take the lives of its own citizens. Individual citizens, of their own volition, may pursue actions that put their lives at risk in the pursuit of state goals and objectives, but I do feel that the state cannot require its own citizens to die in the pursuit of those goals and objectives.

 

[gnome]

I truly believe that some people deserve to die.

However, I am unwilling to empower the government to do so, were it up to me.

I do not trust them to apply it fairly, and do not find much practical advantage over placing the people that you would otherwise execute in prison permanently. Thus I don't see the point in trying very hard to come up with a fair and trustworthy way to empower the government to do this.

 

[Trakar]

I truly believe that some people deserve to die.

However, I am unwilling to empower the government to do so, were it up to me.

I do not trust them to apply it fairly, and do not find much practical advantage over placing the people that you would otherwise execute in prison permanently. Thus I don't see the point in trying very hard to come up with a fair and trustworthy way to empower the government to do this.

I certainly understand and sympathize with this stand. Note that I am not saying that no individual may ever be justified in the taking of the life of another individual, merely that the collective that is the state should not be an involved party in such a process.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I truly believe that some people deserve to die.

However, I am unwilling to empower the government to do so, were it up to me.

I do not trust them to apply it fairly, and do not find much practical advantage over placing the people that you would otherwise execute in prison permanently. Thus I don't see the point in trying very hard to come up with a fair and trustworthy way to empower the government to do this.

I think that is a very pragmatic approach to take. Easy to enunciate and defend, I quite like it.

A bit like a non-drinker recognizing that prohibition is worse than the problems caused by drinking.

 

[luchog]

More than that, I'm well aware that the US criminal justice system is seriously broken beyond repair.

This.

And the reason for it? Religious moralists who focus on "punishment" rather than restitution, protection, and rehabilitation. Moral outrage about punishment and "just desserts" rarely cares about how many innocents they harm in the process of inflicting their retribution; and come up with all sorts of justifications for it that allow them to suppress the cognitive dissonance. Criminal justice systems that focus on more rational principles see far less recidivism, and far fewer injustices created by the system.

 

[Samson]

I thought this was worth reviving, as more public votes would be great. There's always planet x.

I have a question.

Was the killing of Osama Bin Laden an execution?

 

[catsmate]

This.

And the reason for it? Religious moralists who focus on "punishment" rather than restitution, protection, and rehabilitation. Moral outrage about punishment and "just desserts" rarely cares about how many innocents they harm in the process of inflicting their retribution; and come up with all sorts of justifications for it that allow them to suppress the cognitive dissonance. Criminal justice systems that focus on more rational principles see far less recidivism, and far fewer injustices created by the system.

Don't forget the confluence of three other factors:
1. Media interesting in pushing scare stories, for more consumers of their product or to support their owners' political agenda.
2. Prosecutors and judges actually elected to office and thus subject to the whims of the easily influenced mob.
3. The growing private prison industry needing more inmates.

 

[3point14]

the amount of evidence against the accused establishes their guilt not just beyond a reasonable doubt but instead establishes their guilt beyond almost any doubt.

They're the same thing.

Unreasonable doubt would be something like: 'Invisible Elvis did it'.

 

[Kev The Green]

Don't really have a problem with guilty people being executed if it serves a legitimate purpose like with Saddam Husein. He "deserves to die" doesn't really do it for me. Since protecting the innocent is a major concern, that make it an easy 'No' on the death penalty.

 

[Belz...]

The poll is an elaborate false dichotomy fallacy.

I think the choices are good but I'd add one for myself: It may be acceptable but only for the absolute worst crimes, such as mass murder and crimes against humanity, and only if you're damn sure.

ETA: Ooops. Old thread.

 

[Samson]

I think the choices are good but I'd add one for myself: It may be acceptable but only for the absolute worst crimes, such as mass murder and crimes against humanity, and only if you're damn sure.

ETA: Ooops. Old thread.

School days are good days, old threads are good threads.
I am a little surprised how quickly good threads that explore permanent ethical dilemmas wither, but of course the market is alway right.

 

[fuelair]

It could be argued that he consistently delivers such catastrophic injuries to the henchmen of villains that it is inconceivable that none of them have ever died. But he tends not to kill any of the main villains.

That's right, I just said that Batman has messed up priorities.

All the DC and most , if not all the Marvel ones have that little problem - as I have noted before. They're are too good to kill the big-bad, so the big -bad escapes and kills more innocents but the hero doesn't kill them so the big-bad goes to jail and gets out and kills more people so the hero.............Kill the bad guys- cartoon ones or real ones. Make sure they cannot torture/kill/harm again.

 

[fuelair]

But aren't we better than they are?

Yes, we are - we did not start the cycle, they do.

 

[fuelair]

I thought this was worth reviving, as more public votes would be great. There's always planet x.

I have a question.

Was the killing of Osama Bin Laden an execution?

Maybe, DKDC. Had he been taken prisoner/for trial the rectum breathers who worshipped his fecal matter would likely have done all sorts of bad things to try to get him released/traded back,

 

[jimbob]

Don't really have a problem with guilty people being executed if it serves a legitimate purpose like with Saddam Husein. He "deserves to die" doesn't really do it for me. Since protecting the innocent is a major concern, that make it an easy 'No' on the death penalty.

Yes, And there are very few people whose existence is so dangerous that they should be killed. Bin Laden probably was.

 

[arthwollipot]

What was the "legitimate purpose" in killing Saddam Hussein?

 

[Kev The Green]

Since where talking about the morality of the death penalty, I'm not going to get into the issue of whether or not it was a good idea to depose him. Once deposed, a living Saddam Hussein would have undermined the legitimacy of whatever Iraqi government was established next. It's generally not a good idea to leave former heads of state alive when they were despotic dictators that empowered an ethnic minority at the expense of the majority. I don't feel particularly sorry for him, he knew the job was dangerous when he took it.

 

[Darth Rotor]

What was the "legitimate purpose" in killing Saddam Hussein?

Why don't you go to an Iraqi Shi'ite forum and ask that question.

 

[Caper]

I don't shed any tears over murderers being executed, but I sort of wish executions employed more poetic justice:

Murderer kills by strangling, then execution by strangling.
Murderer tortures victims for weeks on end before killing them, execution by torture for weeks on end.
Murderer buries victims alive, then execution by live burial.
Murderer gives victims their choice of last meal and a painless injection of sedatives and barbiturates, then execution by that method.

I like your thinking. I always thought a great system would be where we gave the prisoners that are in jail for life, one chance at freedom. All they have to do is sink a 3-point shot (basketball). If they make it they are free, if not... the moment they miss the shot a snipers bullet instantly ends their life. You could set it up like a reality show... where every week a new prisoner gets trained by some of the best 3-point shooters in the world (Reggie Miller for example) and over the course of the show we get to know the prisoner, what they did and whether they feel remorse. Sometimes we hate them and cheer as their ball clanks off the rim, then watch as their 3-point follow through falls into a heap on the ground. Other times we would feel sorry for the prisoner.... maybe they proclaim their innocence and we believe them, or forgive their drug fueled youthful indiscretions. But we cheer for them and we are on the edge of our seats, some crying as his shaky hand hurls the ball in the air. The show would be huge and not only would money be saved, not having appeals or housing prisoners for the rest of their life, but the money made through advertising can fund prisoner rehabilitation and education.

I mean... that's a good idea right?

 

[commandlinegamer]

I don't feel particularly sorry for him, he knew the job was dangerous when he took it.

"As always, should you or any of your I.M. Force be caught or killed, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions."

Sorry, couldn't resist.