Death penalty is wrong, this is why..

[Matteo Martini]

So your answer is, "Don't kill him! Just lock him away from any human contact for the rest of his life."

That's far more humane.

So, let them ( the inmates ) choose

 

[Matteo Martini]

Still, it could happen. And if it happens even once and an innocent person dies, that's enough reason to scrap the idea, right? Well, that's the argument you're making against the death penalty. One innocent death is too many. This problem will always rear its head when you argue in absolutes.

An innocent means a guard?
The possibility of an inmate without guns, killing an armed guard, in especially secluded prisons, if close to zero, much more closer that the possibility of a jury to send to death an innocent by accident.

Then debate. Please answer my question.

Maybe, we should try to limit the sope of this discussion, if you agree.
But, if you do not, I can answer.

Incorrect. The judicial system making life-and-death decisions is not the same as an individual making life-and-death decisions. It is a much more regulated process.

This is the point
Being regulated or not, does not mean being more fair.
In the case I have submitted, as in many many other cases, the victim that sues the murderer can know that the murderer is a murderer ( for sure ) but not be able to bring enough proofs.

Yes, we have agreed that it is sometimes acceptable to kill another human. The one example you have agreed with me on is self-defense. Now I'm trying to build on that one agreement. Killing in self defense, or defense of family is one example of killing for "the greater good", in this case, the greater good is that, although we don't like to have anybody die, it is better for the attacker to die than an innocent person. I've been trying to demonstrate that the principle of "greater good" can be applied in other situations as well.

I would not call self-defence as " greater good ", anyway, yes, we do agree.

As for living by the laws of society, I assume you do. If you're not, then you can be justifiably locked up or punished in accordance with the laws of that society. This is the social contract.

Which none of us has ever signed.
Another important point

Exactly. Why do you seem less outraged by a murderer going free than by a murderer dying for his crime?

As letting a murderer receive a lesser punishment ( not go free ), could be seen as an act of benevolence of society, killing an innocent makes the state on the same level of a cold blood murderer

Oh? Then you only believe in good for the individual? If you don't believe in "greater good" then why are you concerned about anybody but yourself dying? Your dislike for the term "greater good" is outweighing practicality.

OK, let` s speak about facts, " greater good " is not a clear sentence.

Maybe not. The will to live is a strong instinct. That doesn't mean that euthanasia isn't less cruel. Giving somebody what they want isn't necessarily the same thing as empathy. They shoot horses, don't they?

Horses are not people.

No, wars are not necessarily about defending life. [..]

I was saying that, in wars, there may be occasions were you have to send a person to die.
For example, as you have no prisons.

Not in the way you have set up the scenario. It is quite outlandish.

I do not think so ( my scenario is not outlandish )

Yep. It is decided in court. So why don't you allow the courts to handle life-and-death issues too? It is not perfect, but it is more fair than most ways.

If you allow juries to decide about life and death, people would feel allowed to decide about life and death too, if they have reasons to suspect they may know the case better than the jury.
Look at my, not outlandish, example

Because the laws prevent them from it. Justice is administered by courts, not by individuals.

Who said that?

The society you live in has determined that this is for the greater good.

Again, " greater good "..

You seem to be simultaneously arguing that you don't believe in "greater good" as decided by the legal system, and that people shouldn't take the law into their own hands. Your position appears to be internally contradictory.

No, as I am against death penalty, and this position solves both problems..

 

[jsfisher]

This is why I am not against killing for self-defense

You might want to check what you are responding to, here, Matteo.

Remember, you were the one that advanced the notion individual morality and societal morality were the same, so if X is sufficient to make killing by society unacceptable, then X should be sufficient to make killing by an individual unacceptable and vice versa.

EITHER killing in self defense and capital punishment in self defense are both acceptable, OR they are both unacceptable.

 

[Tricky]

An innocent means a guard?

More often another prisoner, who, while not totally innocent, may not be a murderer.

The possibility of an inmate without guns, killing an armed guard, in especially secluded prisons, if close to zero, much more closer that the possibility of a jury to send to death an innocent by accident.

I don't agree with you. This is from Arizona only.

The defendant committed this murder while in the custody of the Department of Corrections, at the Arizona State Prison.

Maybe, we should try to limit the sope of this discussion, if you agree.
But, if you do not, I can answer.

What scope would you like to limit it to? If you can answer, then please do. I've only asked half a dozen times.

This is the point
Being regulated or not, does not mean being more fair.

I disagree strongly. An "unregulated killing" such as a murder during a robbery or outside a bar or even a crime of passion is much less fair than a "regulated killing" that has been authorized through due process of law and decided by a jury. I cannot see how you could possibly argue otherwise.

In the case I have submitted, as in many many other cases, the victim that sues the murderer can know that the murderer is a murderer ( for sure ) but not be able to bring enough proofs.

This is another instance of courts being more fair. If you can't bring enough proof, then the person is not convicted. That is why we have the judicial system. At least I think that is what you meant. Your sentence wasn't very clear.

I would not call self-defence as " greater good ", anyway, yes, we do agree.

Good. I'm glad we got that much straight, even though you still have a problem with "greater good".

Which none of us has ever signed.
Another important point.

No, a totally meaningless point. If you don't agree to live by the rules of a society, then you must either leave that society or accept the fact that you will be punished for breaking those rules. You have to obey the laws of the place you live in, even if you never signed an agreement to do so.

As letting a murderer receive a lesser punishment ( not go free ), could be seen as an act of benevolence of society, killing an innocent makes the state on the same level of a cold blood murderer.

Most murderers who go free do not do so because of the benevolence of society, but because society isn't able to catch them. Would you get rid of society because it is not perfect in catching murderers. I hope you would not. People do the best they can. They are not perfect. You expect perfection in one aspect of crime and punishment (administering the death penalty), yet not in others (capturing murderers). I find that to be unreasonable.

And you can drop the "cold blooded murderer" business. It is a phrase calculated to stir emotion, but has no legal standing. Killing is either more justified or less justified. And all shades of in between. That is why it is better to let the courts sort it out. They go on evidence, not "cold blooded" emotion.

OK, let` s speak about facts, " greater good " is not a clear sentence.

No, it is not a sentence. It is a term that refers to your reasoning in choosing one path over another. It is judgment. We all make our own judgments about what is the "greater good". You don't like the term? Well, try "cost-benefit analysis". I don't like that because it sounds strictly monetary, even though it need not be. Or perhaps you could call it "doing what is best for mankind". It's not a difficult concept, though defining it is... well... tricky. All kinds of well-meaning people will debate what it means.

Horses are not people.

Horses are not the same as people, though there are some people that arguably are worse to have on earth than horses. But of course, it is just a phrase, meaning that sometimes doing something unpleasant, like killing a creature, is still the right thing to do.

I was saying that, in wars, there may be occasions were you have to send a person to die.
For example, as you have no prisons.

When you drop a bomb on the enemy, it is not for "self defense". It is for winning the war. This is yet another case of killing that many consider justifiable even though it is not self-defense. I could probably give you others, but since you won't answer my questions, I see no reason to propose these scenarios.

I do not think so ( my scenario is not outlandish )

If you allow juries to decide about life and death, people would feel allowed to decide about life and death too, if they have reasons to suspect they may know the case better than the jury.
Look at my, not outlandish, example.

If your example is not outlandish, then you should be able to find a few cases where this has happened, right?

Who said that?

Who said what? I said laws prevent people from taking justice into their own hands. No, it's not perfect. Do you disagree?

Again, " greater good ".

And again, an easy concept to grasp. Use one of the alternative word combinations I provided for the concept if you cannot bear to use this one.

No, as I am against death penalty, and this position solves both problems.

No, it solves one, but ignores the other. If you believe that we shouldn't kill people, then you do so because you have a position on the rights of others. Since you are not talking about yourself, that means "greater good". Sorry if that hurts.

 

[Matteo Martini]

More often another prisoner, who, while not totally innocent, may not be a murderer.

1) you can reduce this accident to the minimum;
2) you can put murderers together, so they do not even see other prisoners

I don't agree with you. This is from Arizona only.

One case per year.
Which maybe can be reduced very close to zero, if you put the inmate in a secluded part of prison

What scope would you like to limit it to? If you can answer, then please do. I've only asked half a dozen times.

Your point:
" However, you seem to be setting "death of a single person" as the worst thing that can possibly happen. As bad as that is, there are arguably things that are worse. "

I do not know if there are things worse than death.
So what?

I disagree strongly. An "unregulated killing" such as a murder during a robbery or outside a bar or even a crime of passion is much less fair than a "regulated killing" that has been authorized through due process of law and decided by a jury. I cannot see how you could possibly argue otherwise.

The husband who decides to take the law in his hands, and, plan and execute a murder of a guy he knows for sure is a murderer, does that count as " regulated " or " non-regulated " killing?

This is another instance of courts being more fair. If you can't bring enough proof, then the person is not convicted. That is why we have the judicial system. At least I think that is what you meant. Your sentence wasn't very clear.

My point is, what does the husband do, if he can not bring proofs that the burglar is a murderer, but he knows he is?

Good. I'm glad we got that much straight, even though you still have a problem with "greater good".


No, a totally meaningless point. If you don't agree to live by the rules of a society, then you must either leave that society or accept the fact that you will be punished for breaking those rules. You have to obey the laws of the place you live in, even if you never signed an agreement to do so.

Who said that?
BTW, how am I supposed to leve the society?
Go to leave in a far island alone?
Where?
Why should not all the society leave, and I stay here?

Most murderers who go free do not do so because of the benevolence of society, but because society isn't able to catch them. Would you get rid of society because it is not perfect in catching murderers. I hope you would not. People do the best they can. They are not perfect. You expect perfection in one aspect of crime and punishment (administering the death penalty), yet not in others (capturing murderers). I find that to be unreasonable.

I do not expect perfection in none of the two.
This is one of the reasons why I am against death penalty

And you can drop the "cold blooded murderer" business. It is a phrase calculated to stir emotion, but has no legal standing. Killing is either more justified or less justified. And all shades of in between. That is why it is better to let the courts sort it out. They go on evidence, not "cold blooded" emotion.

Again, if the state kills an innocent, that is like cold blooded murder, IMHO

No, it is not a sentence. It is a term that refers to your reasoning in choosing one path over another. It is judgment. We all make our own judgments about what is the "greater good". You don't like the term? Well, try "cost-benefit analysis". I don't like that because it sounds strictly monetary, even though it need not be. Or perhaps you could call it "doing what is best for mankind". It's not a difficult concept, though defining it is... well... tricky. All kinds of well-meaning people will debate what it means.

OK
Let` s pass this one..

Horses are not the same as people, though there are some people that arguably are worse to have on earth than horses. But of course, it is just a phrase, meaning that sometimes doing something unpleasant, like killing a creature, is still the right thing to do.

You wrote:
" Maybe not. The will to live is a strong instinct. That doesn't mean that euthanasia isn't less cruel. Giving somebody what they want isn't necessarily the same thing as empathy. They shoot horses, don't they? "

I find the comparison horses-humans quite unpleasant and wrong

When you drop a bomb on the enemy, it is not for "self defense". It is for winning the war. This is yet another case of killing that many consider justifiable even though it is not self-defense. I could probably give you others, but since you won't answer my questions, I see no reason to propose these scenarios.

Not true.
You may well drop the bomb, to prevent the enemy to drop the bomb on you.
This could be a justifiable action.

If your example is not outlandish, then you should be able to find a few cases where this has happened, right?

Do you think I have the time to look for all the criminal records in Italy, to find the cases that fit my scenario?

Who said what? I said laws prevent people from taking justice into their own hands. No, it's not perfect. Do you disagree?

No.
You wrote " Justice is administered by courts, not by individuals. "
I replied " Who said that? "

And again, an easy concept to grasp. Use one of the alternative word combinations I provided for the concept if you cannot bear to use this one.


No, it solves one, but ignores the other. If you believe that we shouldn't kill people, then you do so because you have a position on the rights of others. Since you are not talking about yourself, that means "greater good". Sorry if that hurts.

My position solves both problems, as does not live any alibi for other people to go out and kill culpable people with the excuse that the society too does the same

 

[Mobyseven]

So, let them ( the inmates ) choose

Doesn't it somewhat defeat the purpose of the justice system if we let criminals choose their punishment? We don't just let death row inmates commit suicide, and the same for inmates serving a life sentence. Why should we promote state sponsored suicide?

 

[Beerina]

One case [of prison guards being killed in Arizona] per year.

Which greatly exceeds the rate of innocent people being executed in modern times, which is the point. Even if reduced via your extraordinary suggestions.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Even if reduced via your extraordinary suggestions.

How do you know?

 

[Matteo Martini]

Doesn't it somewhat defeat the purpose of the justice system if we let criminals choose their punishment? We don't just let death row inmates commit suicide, and the same for inmates serving a life sentence. Why should we promote state sponsored suicide?

You wrote:
" So your answer is, "Don't kill him! Just lock him away from any human contact for the rest of his life."

That's far more humane. "

I replied:
" So, let them ( the inmates ) choose ".

Also, have never talked about promoting anything..

 

[Matteo Martini]

I am sorry to write in this thread, just after it had been quite forgotten by anyone, but, thinking, I think I came to find the main point of disagreement.

Basically, my idea is that justice should be useful.
I disagree on the idea of justice for the sake of justice alone.

In detail, justice should have two goals:

1) repair a damage done, for example, Mr. A stole 1000 dollars to Mr. B, justice should take 1000 dollars from Mr. A and give to Mr. B
2) avoid the damage to occur in the future, with the possibility of punishing the culpable: in the case above, Mr. A should pay more than 1000USD ( and, possibly, go to jail ) so he learns not to do the same action again

Death penalty, as I wrote few times, does not accomplish none of the two above.

There is a third goal for justice, which is justice for justice` s sake ( which I do not agree with ).
This is the justice of " eye for eye, tooth for tooth ".
I do not agree with this third goal of justice.

I think this explains all the disagreement on death penalty

Sorry again for overwriting in this post..

 

[jsfisher]

I am sorry to write in this thread, just after it had been quite forgotten by anyone, but, thinking, I think I came to find the main point of disagreement.

Basically, my idea is that justice should be useful.
I disagree on the idea of justice for the sake of justice alone.

In detail, justice should have two goals:

1) repair a damage done, for example, Mr. A stole 1000 dollars to Mr. B, justice should take 1000 dollars from Mr. A and give to Mr. B
2) avoid the damage to occur in the future, with the possibility of punishing the culpable: in the case above, Mr. A should pay more than 1000USD ( and, possibly, go to jail ) so he learns not to do the same action again

Death penalty, as I wrote few times, does not accomplish none of the two above.

There is a third goal for justice, which is justice for justice` s sake ( which I do not agree with ).
This is the justice of " eye for eye, tooth for tooth ".
I do not agree with this third goal of justice.

I think this explains all the disagreement on death penalty

I don't think so.

The question others have been trying to explore with you is what are the conditions where capital punishment is justified and appropriate. If the taking of an innocent life is so heinous, when may society intervene to protect the life of an innocent victim from a not so innocent person.

 

[Z]

I am sorry to write in this thread, just after it had been quite forgotten by anyone, but, thinking, I think I came to find the main point of disagreement.

Basically, my idea is that justice should be useful.
I disagree on the idea of justice for the sake of justice alone.

I can agree with that.

In detail, justice should have two goals:

1) repair a damage done, for example, Mr. A stole 1000 dollars to Mr. B, justice should take 1000 dollars from Mr. A and give to Mr. B
2) avoid the damage to occur in the future, with the possibility of punishing the culpable: in the case above, Mr. A should pay more than 1000USD ( and, possibly, go to jail ) so he learns not to do the same action again

This is a fundamental disagreement, then, because justice also has the goal of deterring others from repeating the same crime.

Death penalty, as I wrote few times, does not accomplish none of the two above.

You're right there. It does not accomplish none of the two above.

(hint: double-negative... )

There is a third goal for justice, which is justice for justice` s sake ( which I do not agree with ).
This is the justice of " eye for eye, tooth for tooth ".
I do not agree with this third goal of justice.

Irrelevant.

I think this explains all the disagreement on death penalty

Not really.

Sorry again for overwriting in this post..

No problem... Larsen apparently fled the scene, too.

 

[balrog666]

I am sorry to write in this thread, just after it had been quite forgotten by anyone, but, thinking, I think I came to find the main point of disagreement.

Basically, my idea is that justice should be useful.
[snip]

To whom? What about grieving widows, fatherless children, raped women?

In detail, justice should have two goals:

1) repair a damage done, for example, Mr. A stole 1000 dollars to Mr. B, justice should take 1000 dollars from Mr. A and give to Mr. B

And if Mr. A has already gone and spent all that ill-gotten gain, then what?

2) avoid the damage to occur in the future, with the possibility of punishing the culpable: in the case above, Mr. A should pay more than 1000USD ( and, possibly, go to jail ) so he learns not to do the same action again

Kill Mr. A and he won't rob Mr. B again. Ever. I vote for that.

Death penalty, as I wrote few times, does not accomplish none of the two above.

Wrong, see above.

There is a third goal for justice, which is justice for justice` s sake ( which I do not agree with ).
This is the justice of " eye for eye, tooth for tooth ".
I do not agree with this third goal of justice.

And why should I care that you agree (or not) with it?

I think this explains all the disagreement on death penalty

Sorry again for overwriting in this post..

No, it doesn't.

 

[Matteo Martini]

I can agree with that.

OK

This is a fundamental disagreement, then, because justice also has the goal of deterring others from repeating the same crime.

Yes, I forgot to add " the others "..

You're right there. It does not accomplish none of the two above.

OK

(hint: double-negative... )

Oops!
Thinking in Italian and writing in English..

Irrelevant.

Geeeezz..
Everybody so nervous..
Just stating my opinion

Not really.

Oh..

No problem... Larsen apparently fled the scene, too.

Adter the other one, Shanek, left too

 

[Matteo Martini]

To whom? What about grieving widows, fatherless children, raped women?

To all the parties damaged.
Yes, to widows, raped women and fatherless children too.

And if Mr. A has already gone and spent all that ill-gotten gain, then what?

Go to jail for some time.
This should discourage to do it again ( reason number 2 ).

Kill Mr. A and he won't rob Mr. B again. Ever. I vote for that.

Would you kill a person because he has robbed 1000USD?
Geez!! Worse than in Iran, here..

Wrong, see above.

Would you kill a person because he has robbed 1000USD??

And why should I care that you agree (or not) with it?

Am I just allowed to say my opinion, or should I send you a PM first to ask you for your approval?

 

[Matteo Martini]

In detail, justice should have two goals:

1) repair a damage done, for example, Mr. A stole 1000 dollars to Mr. B, justice should take 1000 dollars from Mr. A and give to Mr. B
2) avoid the damage to occur in the future, with the possibility of punishing the culpable: in the case above, Mr. A should pay more than 1000USD ( and, possibly, go to jail ) so he learns not to do the same action again

Death penalty, as I wrote few times, does not accomplish none of the two above.

I wrote something not 100% correct here.
I meant:
" Death penalty, does not accomplish point number 1) and there are other less cruent ways to accomplish number 2)
Thanks to balrog for pointing it out.

 

[Matteo Martini]

I don't think so.

The question others have been trying to explore with you is what are the conditions where capital punishment is justified and appropriate.

OK

If the taking of an innocent life is so heinous,

This does not change, in my opinion, our assumption about what justice should be

when may society intervene to protect the life of an innocent victim from a not so innocent person.

You can accomplish that, in the worst cases, sending a person to jail for life without parole.

 

[Matteo Martini]

You might want to check what you are responding to, here, Matteo.

Remember, you were the one that advanced the notion individual morality and societal morality were the same, so if X is sufficient to make killing by society unacceptable, then X should be sufficient to make killing by an individual unacceptable and vice versa.

EITHER killing in self defense and capital punishment in self defense are both acceptable, OR they are both unacceptable.

Sorry, forgot to reply on this.

I agree with what you write.

We have to define what is homidice for self-defense
I would say it is killing another human being when he/she is posing a direct danger to your life, and there are no other solutions at hand ( escape safely, immobilize the opponent, etc. )
If you are in danger of life, but you can escape safely, but you decide to stay and kill the opponent instead, that is not self-defense
In other words, the society has other means than killing the murderer(s) in order to protect itself from them.

 

[Tricky]

Sorry, forgot to reply on this.

I agree with what you write.

We have to define what is homidice for self-defense
I would say it is killing another human being when he/she is posing a direct danger to your life, and there are no other solutions at hand ( escape safely, immobilize the opponent, etc. )
If you are in danger of life, but you can escape safely, but you decide to stay and kill the opponent instead, that is not self-defense
In other words, the society has other means than killing the murderer(s) in order to protect itself from them.

I'd accept this for personal self-defense, but when it comes to defense of your family, the situation changes drastically. You can't know for sure if your spouse or children are going to be able to escape. You may have to make a judgment call that killing the criminal is the best bet for protecting your family, even if you are pretty certain that you could escape. In fact, in a case like that, it would be cowardly to run.

I agree that flight is better than fight if it is available and reliable for all concerned, but protection of loved ones, or really any innocents, is more important than personal escape, IMO. Of course, you have to also make a judgment about what is the best way to protect them, and that varies widely depending on circumstances. Quite often, running for the cops is better than "trying to be a hero". Not always though. There are no few absolutes.

 

[Matteo Martini]

I'd accept this for personal self-defense, but when it comes to defense of your family, the situation changes drastically. You can't know for sure if your spouse or children are going to be able to escape. You may have to make a judgment call that killing the criminal is the best bet for protecting your family, even if you are pretty certain that you could escape. In fact, in a case like that, it would be cowardly to run.

Agreed with that.
Yes, I was only considering the case of personal self-defense

I agree that flight is better than fight if it is available and reliable for all concerned, but protection of loved ones, or really any innocents, is more important than personal escape, IMO. Of course, you have to also make a judgment about what is the best way to protect them, and that varies widely depending on circumstances. Quite often, running for the cops is better than "trying to be a hero". Not always though. There are no few absolutes.

Agreed also with this.