Oubliette
*insert clever/stupid/sarcastic title here*
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2007
- Messages
- 241
Wouldn't it be more clear if you stated why it is relevant first and then have people answer your question?
Death penalty is wrong, this is why..
- Thread starter Matteo Martini
- Start date
-
- Tags
- death penalty
Wouldn't it be more clear if you stated why it is relevant first and then have people answer your question?
Matteo Martini
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 4,561
Yes.
Probably, it would go down, with peanut butter sandwiches.
But, America, where there is death penalty, has higher crime rates that most ( all? ) European countries, where there is not ( mainly ) death penalty.
Matteo Martini
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 4,561
Wouldn't it be more clear if you stated why it is relevant first and then have people answer your question?
I can not explain why, unless you answer to it.
Come on.. It is Yes or no..
Matteo Martini
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 4,561
So, do you think that the husband " justice killing " of the burglar, at the beginning of this thread, was " moral " or " immoral "?
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
OK, I will take the bait. What the husband did was 'moral.'
His wife and child had been killed by this man.
A murderer was therefore on the loose and could kill again. By doing it he potentially saves innocent lives. The murderer did not respect other's right to life, and so his own life is forfeit. No murderer can say 'I have a right to life' because he did not respect others' right to life.
The concept of turning the other cheek makes sense if you believe that God will punish the sinners and reward the righteous in the afterlife. For an atheist, it is not so clear. The only chance we know of for justice is here in this life. You may have to take matters into your own hands. God won't do it for you.
His wife and child had been killed by this man.
A murderer was therefore on the loose and could kill again. By doing it he potentially saves innocent lives. The murderer did not respect other's right to life, and so his own life is forfeit. No murderer can say 'I have a right to life' because he did not respect others' right to life.
The concept of turning the other cheek makes sense if you believe that God will punish the sinners and reward the righteous in the afterlife. For an atheist, it is not so clear. The only chance we know of for justice is here in this life. You may have to take matters into your own hands. God won't do it for you.
Leif Roar
Master Poster
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2002
- Messages
- 2,795
I explained this in my very first post in this thread.
Matteo Martini
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 4,561
Excellent.
Now, I hope other people will take the bait or, if not, they will tell me why not.
Also, remember, that I did not say that the burglar had any intention of killing other people, after that night..
Matteo Martini
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 4,561
You wrote:
" ..snip.. This right must be reserved for a system designed to limit the erronous execution of justice as far as practical.
As long as such a system exists and is, overall, functional, no man has the right to set this system aside for his own convenience, emotional satisfaction or personal conviction. ..snip.. "
Now, in this particular case, the husband was less prone to errors, as he knew the burglar was a murderer.
While the system, which had no means to understand who was the liar, made a mistake leaving the burglar/murderer free..
Leif Roar
Master Poster
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2002
- Messages
- 2,795
Yes, but the husband isn't aware that he's infallible because he's living inside of a hypothetical example. In the real world, the one we have to base our morality on, humans are not infallible nor in possession of perfect knowldege.
Bob Klase
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2002
- Messages
- 2,937
Are you saying that 1 of every 8 executed was later found innocent? Or that for every 8 executed, 1 person on death row was found innocent? If the latter then the 'statistic' is meaningless.
I doubt that one of every 8 people actually executed since 1973 has been found innocent after execution- but I'll look at any actual evidence if that's your claim.
You either need to compare the number of innocent actually executed to the total number executed, or the number of innocent sentenced to death (whether actually executed or still waiting) to the total number sentenced to death (whether actually executed or still waiting). Otherwise you might as well just make up random numbers and connect for random reasons.
Matteo Martini
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 4,561
By the same line of thinking, also the jury of the process whould not have the right to send a person to death
Matteo Martini
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 4,561
What would have happened, if somebody did not push to re-open the case of the person in the death row who have later been found innocent?
vIQleS
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2005
- Messages
- 841
Then you haven't been reading the responses to your OP
The difference was immediately apparent to me, and its been explained to you in a number of very succinct and understandable ways.
Yes, if you like. I wouldn't tell the police or your neighbours though...
Matteo Martini
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 4,561
I beg to ask you to explain to me, once again..
Wolfman
Chief Solipsistic, Autosycophant
CF --
Thank you. For finally getting away from the rhetoric, and presenting actual arguments against capital punishment. I will respond very briefly to those points, then move on, as promised, to presenting my own perspective:
I will preface this by stating that I will discard any argument that is situational (that is, it applies to certain situations, but not all). That is not an argument against capital punishment as a whole, but rather against a certain situation in which capital punishment is used, and cannot be extended to all situations.
Deterrence.
I generally agree that the death penalty is not a deterrent to murder; and in some cases, can actually work the opposite way, as a criminal who knows they face the death penalty has nothing to lose by killing others.
Brutalization of society.
Sorry, I have problems with this. It is a statement purely of opinion, but I would need to see evidence that countries that use capital punishment are consistently more 'brutal' than countries that don't, and that people in countries that have the death penalty are more likely to kill than people in countries that don't.
Again, I have real problems with individuals like yourself who expect me to accept arguments just because that is what you believe. I've also done plenty of research on the death penalty, and have never seen any evidence that actually supports such an argument. If you have such evidence, feel free to present it. If not, I see no reason whatsoever why anyone should accept this as an argument.
Revenge.
I agree that using the death penalty as a form of revenge is wrong; but the death penalty is not always used for revenge. It is, in fact, quite possible to have the death penalty applied for reasons other than revenge. So this argument falls into the situational category -- it is "wrong" if it is used for purposes of revenge.
Just as it would be wrong to imprison or otherwise punish criminals with the intent of 'revenge' in mind; but that does not mean that imprisonment or punishment are implicitly wrong.
Arbitrary.
Here you are referring to a specific system (the U.S. system). It would be quite possible to have a non-arbitrary legal system that used the death penalty. Capital punishment is not implicitly, inevitably arbitrary.
Racist.
Again, you are referring to one specific country. By the same argument, the proportion of blacks who are incarcerated in the U.S. is a far higher proportion than the general black population in the U.S. This does not prove that incarceration is wrong; it proves only that the way it is applied is wrong.
Dude, you seem to suffer under the illusion that the whole world is the same as the U.S. You offer arguments that are based on abuses in the American system, and expect me to accept them as some sort of universal argument. Sorry, doesn't work that way.
Such arguments demonstrate that in specific situations, the death penalty can be abused (as can any form of punishment); they do not in any manner, shape, or form demonstrate that capital punishment is universally wrong.
Human rights.
This is a personal opinion, based on your own moral standards. There are, obviously, many people who disagree entirely, and who feel that capital punishment is completely morally justifiable.
You don't even bother to give reasons as to why it is morally wrong; you simply state it as a fact, implicitly assuming that only your moral perspective is the correct or proper one, and anyone who disagrees is automatically wrong.
This certainly leads to impassioned arguments from you (as we've seen); but is not in any way logical or empirical.
Government-imposed killing of citizens.
This is complete nonsense. Again, if you want to make such an argument, you would have to demonstrate that countries that use the death penalty have more oppressive governments than countries that do not.
If a government had the power to impose the death penalty for any reason, I might perhaps agree with you. But when a government states that only those who commit first degree murder or rape can have the death penalty imposed, then the only people in danger from that government are people who have committed first degree murder or rape.
Again, you give me opinions which are entirely unsubstantiated by any evidence whatsoever, and expect me to just swallow it. Obviously, you have a very high opinion of yourself, however I hope you'll understand that I expect a little bit more evidence than "this is what I believe".
Do you have evidence to support this argument? Then let's see it.
Appeal system.
I'll put this together with the "innocents will be killed" argument below, they are essentially the same thing.
Mob justice.
Again -- evidence. Where is your evidence for this claim? In the U.S. system, the accused has a choice of trial by judge, or by jury. If by judge, he has a professional who is trained to judge based on evidence, not on emotion. If by jury, he has a group of 12 people who knew little or nothing about him and his crime in advance, and who are kept isolated from all outside influencing forces.
Where is the "mob justice" aspect here?
In addition -- repeating a common theme here -- if "mob justice" proves that the death penalty is wrong, then it would mean many other forms of legal punishment are wrong also. Hell, by this argument, it would be morally wrong to convict any murderer at all, for fear that his conviction might be because of "mob justice"...which is plainly a ridiculous argument.
Innocents will be killed.
This is one I would pretty much agree with.
Undermining the concept of justice.
This one I would pretty much agree with.
Is someone punished by being dead?
This one depends on the argument that the death penalty is for the purpose of punishment...that is not the case for many death penalty advocates. They would argue that the death penalty is not for the purpose of punishment, but for the purpose of protection.
Is society protected from any potential for future murders/rapes by this person if they are executed? Absolutely, completely, beyond all doubt. Any other form of punishment offers the possibility that this criminal could be released, or escape, and kill/rape more people.
Freedom.
Again, you are relying on the 'revenge' or 'punishment' arguments of the death penalty.
I could simply turn around and ask a rape victim, or the family of a murder victim, "Would you feel safer knowing that he is dead, and cannot come back again? Or would you feel safer knowing that he is incarcerated, but could be released in the future, and/or escape from confinement?"
It doesn't always happen to others.
I wouldn't like to be on death row. Neither would I like to be put in prison. My basic solution to this is don't commit murder. The fact that I would not like to be put in prison does not mean that putting people in prison is wrong; the fact that I would not like to face the death penalty does not implicitly mean that the death penalty is wrong.
--------------------------------
As demonstrated above, I have problems with a number of your arguments. Some of them make claims that have no evidence to support them at all (such as "a country with the death penalty will encourage a more brutal society"). Other arguments are based purely on your own feelings and opinions, not on anything quantifiable. Other arguments focus on particular abuses that are not universal, and cannot be used against all forms of capital punishment, but only certain instances.
But you have, finally, at least managed to slip in a few arguments that have significant quantifiable evidence to support them -- particularly the argument about the possibility of executing an innocent person.
Now, as promised, I will state my own opinion.
I do not believe that executions are morally wrong. If it was possible to determine a criminal's guilt with 100% certainty, I would likely support the death penalty for a specific class of criminal -- those who committed premeditated murder, and those who committed rape.
However, as you've stated, it is not possible to be 100% sure, and it is a documented, proven fact that a certain percentage of those on death row (and even some who have actually been executed) are innocent of the crimes for which they are being punished. For that reason, and for that reason only, I am opposed to the death penalty.
I see no evidence whatsoever for arguments that capital punishment causes a society to be more brutal, or any other such arguments. And I dare you to present actual quantifiable evidence for such an argument, beyond your own personal opinion.
I see four main purposes for capital punishment -- revenge, punishment, deterrence, and protection. I would disagree with the first three: a legal system based on revenge is wrong, regardless of the punishment imposed; if I want to punish someone, making them live the rest of their lives in an 8x8 prison cell is far worse punishment than simply killing them (in my opinion); and it has been very amply demonstrated that the death penalty is not a deterrent to further crimes.
My focus is on protection. I consider the rights of victims (both actual victims, and potential victims) to absolutely supersede the rights of any convicted murderer or rapist. And in my opinion, the greatest moral responsibility of the government is to do everything they can to prevent even the possibility of a convicted murderer or rapist from committing such a crime again. The most absolute, certain means of doing this is executing the criminal. Any other form of punishment leaves open the possibility that the murderer/rapist will be released, or will escape, and subsequently murder or rape more people.
Now, if the guilt of a murderer/rapist could be determined with absolute certainty, then I would have no problem whatsoever with imposing the death penalty. However, the fact that it is more than adequately proven that innocent people do get convicted, I would oppose it.
I would, of course, also oppose specific instances where the death penalty was abused; for example, if it is used for political reasons to get rid of enemies, or if it is demonstrable that there is a strong racial bias in regards to death sentences. But I would only oppose that specific abuse, not the death penalty in general. Just as I would oppose any other abuse of legal punishments.
Thank you. For finally getting away from the rhetoric, and presenting actual arguments against capital punishment. I will respond very briefly to those points, then move on, as promised, to presenting my own perspective:
I will preface this by stating that I will discard any argument that is situational (that is, it applies to certain situations, but not all). That is not an argument against capital punishment as a whole, but rather against a certain situation in which capital punishment is used, and cannot be extended to all situations.
Deterrence.
I generally agree that the death penalty is not a deterrent to murder; and in some cases, can actually work the opposite way, as a criminal who knows they face the death penalty has nothing to lose by killing others.
Brutalization of society.
Sorry, I have problems with this. It is a statement purely of opinion, but I would need to see evidence that countries that use capital punishment are consistently more 'brutal' than countries that don't, and that people in countries that have the death penalty are more likely to kill than people in countries that don't.
Again, I have real problems with individuals like yourself who expect me to accept arguments just because that is what you believe. I've also done plenty of research on the death penalty, and have never seen any evidence that actually supports such an argument. If you have such evidence, feel free to present it. If not, I see no reason whatsoever why anyone should accept this as an argument.
Revenge.
I agree that using the death penalty as a form of revenge is wrong; but the death penalty is not always used for revenge. It is, in fact, quite possible to have the death penalty applied for reasons other than revenge. So this argument falls into the situational category -- it is "wrong" if it is used for purposes of revenge.
Just as it would be wrong to imprison or otherwise punish criminals with the intent of 'revenge' in mind; but that does not mean that imprisonment or punishment are implicitly wrong.
Arbitrary.
Here you are referring to a specific system (the U.S. system). It would be quite possible to have a non-arbitrary legal system that used the death penalty. Capital punishment is not implicitly, inevitably arbitrary.
Racist.
Again, you are referring to one specific country. By the same argument, the proportion of blacks who are incarcerated in the U.S. is a far higher proportion than the general black population in the U.S. This does not prove that incarceration is wrong; it proves only that the way it is applied is wrong.
Dude, you seem to suffer under the illusion that the whole world is the same as the U.S. You offer arguments that are based on abuses in the American system, and expect me to accept them as some sort of universal argument. Sorry, doesn't work that way.
Such arguments demonstrate that in specific situations, the death penalty can be abused (as can any form of punishment); they do not in any manner, shape, or form demonstrate that capital punishment is universally wrong.
Human rights.
This is a personal opinion, based on your own moral standards. There are, obviously, many people who disagree entirely, and who feel that capital punishment is completely morally justifiable.
You don't even bother to give reasons as to why it is morally wrong; you simply state it as a fact, implicitly assuming that only your moral perspective is the correct or proper one, and anyone who disagrees is automatically wrong.
This certainly leads to impassioned arguments from you (as we've seen); but is not in any way logical or empirical.
Government-imposed killing of citizens.
This is complete nonsense. Again, if you want to make such an argument, you would have to demonstrate that countries that use the death penalty have more oppressive governments than countries that do not.
If a government had the power to impose the death penalty for any reason, I might perhaps agree with you. But when a government states that only those who commit first degree murder or rape can have the death penalty imposed, then the only people in danger from that government are people who have committed first degree murder or rape.
Again, you give me opinions which are entirely unsubstantiated by any evidence whatsoever, and expect me to just swallow it. Obviously, you have a very high opinion of yourself, however I hope you'll understand that I expect a little bit more evidence than "this is what I believe".
Do you have evidence to support this argument? Then let's see it.
Appeal system.
I'll put this together with the "innocents will be killed" argument below, they are essentially the same thing.
Mob justice.
Again -- evidence. Where is your evidence for this claim? In the U.S. system, the accused has a choice of trial by judge, or by jury. If by judge, he has a professional who is trained to judge based on evidence, not on emotion. If by jury, he has a group of 12 people who knew little or nothing about him and his crime in advance, and who are kept isolated from all outside influencing forces.
Where is the "mob justice" aspect here?
In addition -- repeating a common theme here -- if "mob justice" proves that the death penalty is wrong, then it would mean many other forms of legal punishment are wrong also. Hell, by this argument, it would be morally wrong to convict any murderer at all, for fear that his conviction might be because of "mob justice"...which is plainly a ridiculous argument.
Innocents will be killed.
This is one I would pretty much agree with.
Undermining the concept of justice.
This one I would pretty much agree with.
Is someone punished by being dead?
This one depends on the argument that the death penalty is for the purpose of punishment...that is not the case for many death penalty advocates. They would argue that the death penalty is not for the purpose of punishment, but for the purpose of protection.
Is society protected from any potential for future murders/rapes by this person if they are executed? Absolutely, completely, beyond all doubt. Any other form of punishment offers the possibility that this criminal could be released, or escape, and kill/rape more people.
Freedom.
Again, you are relying on the 'revenge' or 'punishment' arguments of the death penalty.
I could simply turn around and ask a rape victim, or the family of a murder victim, "Would you feel safer knowing that he is dead, and cannot come back again? Or would you feel safer knowing that he is incarcerated, but could be released in the future, and/or escape from confinement?"
It doesn't always happen to others.
I wouldn't like to be on death row. Neither would I like to be put in prison. My basic solution to this is don't commit murder. The fact that I would not like to be put in prison does not mean that putting people in prison is wrong; the fact that I would not like to face the death penalty does not implicitly mean that the death penalty is wrong.
--------------------------------
As demonstrated above, I have problems with a number of your arguments. Some of them make claims that have no evidence to support them at all (such as "a country with the death penalty will encourage a more brutal society"). Other arguments are based purely on your own feelings and opinions, not on anything quantifiable. Other arguments focus on particular abuses that are not universal, and cannot be used against all forms of capital punishment, but only certain instances.
But you have, finally, at least managed to slip in a few arguments that have significant quantifiable evidence to support them -- particularly the argument about the possibility of executing an innocent person.
Now, as promised, I will state my own opinion.
I do not believe that executions are morally wrong. If it was possible to determine a criminal's guilt with 100% certainty, I would likely support the death penalty for a specific class of criminal -- those who committed premeditated murder, and those who committed rape.
However, as you've stated, it is not possible to be 100% sure, and it is a documented, proven fact that a certain percentage of those on death row (and even some who have actually been executed) are innocent of the crimes for which they are being punished. For that reason, and for that reason only, I am opposed to the death penalty.
I see no evidence whatsoever for arguments that capital punishment causes a society to be more brutal, or any other such arguments. And I dare you to present actual quantifiable evidence for such an argument, beyond your own personal opinion.
I see four main purposes for capital punishment -- revenge, punishment, deterrence, and protection. I would disagree with the first three: a legal system based on revenge is wrong, regardless of the punishment imposed; if I want to punish someone, making them live the rest of their lives in an 8x8 prison cell is far worse punishment than simply killing them (in my opinion); and it has been very amply demonstrated that the death penalty is not a deterrent to further crimes.
My focus is on protection. I consider the rights of victims (both actual victims, and potential victims) to absolutely supersede the rights of any convicted murderer or rapist. And in my opinion, the greatest moral responsibility of the government is to do everything they can to prevent even the possibility of a convicted murderer or rapist from committing such a crime again. The most absolute, certain means of doing this is executing the criminal. Any other form of punishment leaves open the possibility that the murderer/rapist will be released, or will escape, and subsequently murder or rape more people.
Now, if the guilt of a murderer/rapist could be determined with absolute certainty, then I would have no problem whatsoever with imposing the death penalty. However, the fact that it is more than adequately proven that innocent people do get convicted, I would oppose it.
I would, of course, also oppose specific instances where the death penalty was abused; for example, if it is used for political reasons to get rid of enemies, or if it is demonstrable that there is a strong racial bias in regards to death sentences. But I would only oppose that specific abuse, not the death penalty in general. Just as I would oppose any other abuse of legal punishments.
Last edited:
TheAnachronism
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2007
- Messages
- 439
My dear forum members! Sadly it seems that you, in your great haste to form intelligent arguments, have completely mistaken the point of Matteo Martini's original post, and thus dashed his hopes and dreams to pieces.
Had you been willing to give in to Matteo's coercion to answer his original post, you would have been expected to respond with "why no, what that man did was most certainly not moral!" at which point Matteo was to whip out part II of Ye Great Post and exclaim something to the affect of: "ha! Then why would you allow your government to have the right to legally commit this immoral act?!"
At that point, we would have all been in awe of Matteo's skills in the art of conversation, argument and rhetoric.
And they all lived happily ever after.
Had you been willing to give in to Matteo's coercion to answer his original post, you would have been expected to respond with "why no, what that man did was most certainly not moral!" at which point Matteo was to whip out part II of Ye Great Post and exclaim something to the affect of: "ha! Then why would you allow your government to have the right to legally commit this immoral act?!"
At that point, we would have all been in awe of Matteo's skills in the art of conversation, argument and rhetoric.
And they all lived happily ever after.
autumn1971
Illuminator
My personal opinion (not, thank Heisenberg, legally binding or precedent setting) is that the actions of the wronged man in the OP are quite morally defensible. However, they are legally indefensible, and the man should fully expect to face the full weight of the law in response to his actions. It's a kind of (un)civil disobedience.
Matteo Martini
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 4,561
OK.
We are not talking about what is legal or not, as we all know, that the husband` s behaviour is not legal, by any means.
Now, without further ado:
The behaviour of the man is somehow defensible/moral:
Autumn 1971
Puppycow
The behaviour of the man is not defensible/moral:
Wolfman
Will wait for other to join.
Disclaimer
The above scheme is an over-simplification of each one` s position.
It has no aim to discredit/make fun or anyone` s position ( including mine ).
Just the aim to simplify the reading.
That is it.
Revised to add Wolfman position
Last edited:
Matteo Martini
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 4,561
Wolfman
Chief Solipsistic, Autosycophant
Matteo,
Tell ya' what...I'll answer your question, if you'll answer mine (which was posted quite a bit earlier).
To answer your question -- no, I do not believe it is either moral nor legal for a person to kill another person, in the scenario you have proposed. I will clarify, however, that this does not mean I think that killing another person is always wrong or immoral. Now, here's my question for you in return:
A person invades your home. They kill your wife, and rape your daughter. You know who did it, but in trial, that person is released due to lack of evidence. Now, if instead of killing that person, you go and kidnap that person, and imprison them in your basement for the next 30 or 40 years, do you believe that is moral, or that such behavior should be legal?
I've answered your question clearly; I'd appreciate it if you would do the same for my question.
Tell ya' what...I'll answer your question, if you'll answer mine (which was posted quite a bit earlier).
To answer your question -- no, I do not believe it is either moral nor legal for a person to kill another person, in the scenario you have proposed. I will clarify, however, that this does not mean I think that killing another person is always wrong or immoral. Now, here's my question for you in return:
A person invades your home. They kill your wife, and rape your daughter. You know who did it, but in trial, that person is released due to lack of evidence. Now, if instead of killing that person, you go and kidnap that person, and imprison them in your basement for the next 30 or 40 years, do you believe that is moral, or that such behavior should be legal?
I've answered your question clearly; I'd appreciate it if you would do the same for my question.