• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ok, why should *this* guy live?

Lets see some folk don't trust their government to provide health care for all but they do trust them to decide who should live and die... always strikes me as rather a strange position to hold.
 
Darat said:
Lets see some folk don't trust their government to provide health care for all but they do trust them to decide who should live and die... always strikes me as rather a strange position to hold.
Click to expand...

Some people believe that the role of government should be very limited, but that the justice system is one of the few examples where government has a legitimate role.
 
MRC_Hans said:
I see it is already addressed, but still:

Showing even the worst dirtball is a false dilemma in the discussion of capital punishment. There are plenty of people in prisons and elswhere whose demise few people would lament. I even guess some 'deserve to die'.

However, the proper question should be: Is this person really worth having death penalty for? Do we really want to have death rows, executioners, and the risk of one day executing an innocent person by mistake, just to do away with this person? - Or do we just let him drag his miserable life to its natural end in a prison (which is arguably a worse punishment)?

Hans
Click to expand...

Life in prison is only arguably worse until you give people a choice, then they usually choose it (though, we should note, not always. Some give up their appeals deliberately.)


I am fine with arguments that there might be a wrongful execution. I am also fine with arguments about unequal application of the law based on race, especially when taking into account the severity of the crime, and the only two differentiating factors are the race of the killer and the victim. I am even fine with discussions of the propriety of giving the government this power -- I've often suggested Europeans are so much more against it because they have had political executions quite literally in living memory.

I just don't like people masking a general queasiness to the death penalty with these arguments, which aren't the core of why they have their position.
 
Arcade22 said:
Everything continues as normal. Most people aren't absolutist that need there
to be a 0% fault rate. This is why you put adequate checks into the law so you can decrease the likeliness that someone who is innocent is executed.
Click to expand...

That's an insufficient excuse for explaining why the state should have power over life or death. All you're doing here is compartmentalizing into parts so you don't have to address the justification for the government to choose who lives and who dies. The only argument you've actually made in defense of that has been the "punishment fits the crime" justification, and yet the state would be considered abhorrent if it were cutting hands off of convicted theives, cutting tongues out of convicted cheats or embezzlers or scammers, cutting the feet off speeders, and the like. Again, you fail to specify a proper justification for the state being allowed to conduct an irrevocable, final punishment for some people but not others. That is the basis of the challenge I'm making to the death penalty.

Arcade22 said:
Nonsense. I believe that killing someone can be extremely moral, it all depends on who you kill.
Click to expand...

And again, that sounds all well and good until the state decides it's moral to put you to death. This is the flaw in support for the death penalty-- it's arbitrary and inconsistent.

I have no problem with the idea that sometimes a matter of killing could be justified as moral depending on the case. I'm not a pacifist or a bleeding heart that feels sorry for even people who have done egregious wrongs. I certainly agree that there are plenty of people who shouldn't be sucking air that exist in the world. My trouble comes in at what makes it okay for the state to be the one sanctioning which death is moral, who should be killed, and how or when it is meant to take place? This is a practice that can't be taken back and reparations made to those the state punishes wrongly, which is over the line of justice for the people of that state-- after all, justice for some (even most) but not all is not a free society, and gets very distinctly into the problem of tyranny by majority. My position isn't against death as a punishment necessarily, but the conditions through which such a punishment is considered moral, justifiable, and allegedly fair despite its obvious flaws.
 
dtugg said:
As has been pointed out many times, capital punishment is by definition not murder.



It does deter that particular person from ever hurting anyone again.
Click to expand...

Given that you are particular about the meaning of 'murder', perhaps you should also be particular about the meaning of 'deter'.
 
dtugg said:
I am not sure who that is. But I am talking about in theory; ie the person is actually guilty. I've already said the possibility that an innocent person may be executed is the only reason that I am hesitant about the death penalty. If we could know for certain if somebody was guilty I would be in favor of automatic death sentences for everybody guilty of first-degree murder.
Click to expand...

So, if the government was perfect and run by omniscient and omnibenevolent angels the death penalty would be a good idea?

Sorry, I prefer to make rules for the government we have, rather than the government that no one on earth has ever had in anything even close to.
 
GreyICE said:
Sorry, I prefer to make rules for the government we have, rather than the government that no one on earth has ever had in anything even close to.
Click to expand...

Well, yes. But the problem is that these two arguments against capital punishment keep getting conflated:

A) The government shouldn't kill anyone; hence, the government shouldn't kill those found guilty because killing people is universally bad.

B) The government can't tell the difference between the guilty and the innocent, and shouldn't kill the innocent; hence the government shouldn't kill those found guilty because the risk of killing an innocent person is too high.

These are very different arguments, and we should carefully distinguish them when discussing this issue.
 
AvalonXQ said:
Well, yes. But the problem is that these two arguments against capital punishment keep getting conflated:

A) The government shouldn't kill anyone; hence, the government shouldn't kill those found guilty because killing people is universally bad.

B) The government can't tell the difference between the guilty and the innocent, and shouldn't kill the innocent; hence the government shouldn't kill those found guilty because the risk of killing an innocent person is too high.

These are very different arguments, and we should carefully distinguish them when discussing this issue.
Click to expand...
B is rather overstating the case. I'd say the system we have is pretty good at telling the guilty from the innocent. Pretty good is not 'perfect' and I think that when death is on the line, perfections is pretty much a necessity.

A is interesting from a philosophical sense, but I do not believe it is justified.

However, proponents of the death penalty must explain both A and B, they cannot use arguments against A to refute B, which is what several people on this thread have done (that's called a 'Strawman' incidentally).
 
Uzzy said:
You misread. Society or the State should not ever reduce itself to the level of the murderer, which it does by using capital punishment. And yes, society would be better off without him, which is what life imprisonment is for.
Click to expand...

Clearly, the government (instituted with the consent of the governed and answerable to its people) punishing by painless death a criminal who murdered someone in cold blood (who also has no remorse for the killing), after bringing him to a trial in which he is presumed to be innocent and must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty and then granted multiple appeals all following due process is EXACTLY the same as a private person brutally murdering an innocent.

Gotcha.

I'm not a big fan of the death penalty simply due to the fact that it is irreversable and no justice system is perfect, but this argument above always struck me as infantile.

If the government incarcerates a kidnapper, has it "reduce[ed] itself to the level of the" kidnapper?
 
Jack Abbot the author of "In The Belly Of the Beast" was depressed after he was returned to prison after killing someone else shortly after he was released. The man who isbragging about his sadistic murder of some girl will not be happy in prison. His taunting letter is just bull. Being a white racist and murderer in prison will win him no brownie points. Other whites will shun him and the black prisoners will always be a threat to him. If he isn't in protective custody he'll soon wish he was in he doesn't already. He'll be shunned at bvest and assaulted at worst. No one will ever befriend him. He's a complete total and utter pariah. He will end up in one of three ways. He'll be shived to death, he'll commit suicide or he will live a miserable existence segrated from the rest of the prison population for the remainder of his totally worthless and obnoxious life.

Look what happened to geoghan the Catholic Priest who was convicted of sexually molesting a boy. He was in protective custody and he was murdered anyway. His fear will be a day to day ordeal. He will not die in peace.
 
GreyICE said:
So, if the government was perfect and run by omniscient and omnibenevolent angels the death penalty would be a good idea?
Click to expand...

TBH I don't even see the point in debating something based on that premise, for the scope of discussing actual laws, since it's utterly false anyway.

It's akin to debating whether cutting a thief's hand would be acceptable if humans had 10 arms. Surely one less won't make a huge difference. Well, ok, but in the real world that's not the case, so I fail to see the relevance on real world laws.

We'll worry about what to do in that ideally omniscient situation when we're anywhere near having it.

The fact in the here and now is that judicial errors and even _gross_ injustice are an every day fact of life. DNA testing alone has exonerated a ridiculous number of people. And then there are cases like the guy who was convicted based on a single witness's testimony... which the witness later admitted to its being perjury plain and simple. Or the guys convicted (and at least one executed) on the testimony of an "expert witness" which didn't know elementary physics. Or the at least two people off the top of my head convicted based on nothing more than someone arguing that a mild statistical fluke can't possibly be accidental. Etc.

And it's not going to change any time soon. While DNA testing was a silver bullet for some cases, it also actually makes it easier to frame someone.

The most trivial example: pick up a cigarette butt at the bus station. Drop it at the crime scene. Congrats, you just planted DNA evidence against a random stranger. It's that trivial.
 
I'm surprised to see a libertarian frame the question this way (ok, not really). I mean, it's not like we start from the assumption that the state is entitled to kill us and then justify our existence from there...right?

The argumentative burden runs the other way. Properly understood, the question is "Why should we kill him?" I've never seen a convincing argument for doing so--any good that would follow from execution can be found in alternatives that don't put blood on our hands.

The best possible reason I can think of is that it would make at least some people feel good. But if that's our standard, some pretty horrible practices can be sanctioned. I don't see any good reason to let special revenge feelings anywhere near a modern, rational justice system.
 
AvalonXQ said:
Well, yes. But the problem is that these two arguments against capital punishment keep getting conflated:

A) The government shouldn't kill anyone; hence, the government shouldn't kill those found guilty because killing people is universally bad.

B) The government can't tell the difference between the guilty and the innocent, and shouldn't kill the innocent; hence the government shouldn't kill those found guilty because the risk of killing an innocent person is too high.

These are very different arguments, and we should carefully distinguish them when discussing this issue.
Click to expand...

I made neither of those two arguments, which ignore the very serious question I put forth: what is the justification for allowing the state to put a citizen to death, and why is this completely irrevocable and final punishment only considered logically sound with regard to conditions for the death penalty? The entire argument in favor is wholly inconsistent and arbitrary, because we're not performing irrevocable punishments for any other crimes, and in fact I would posit that nearly everyone here advocating for the death penalty would be against such absolute capital punishment for other crimes on principle.

Interesting note: the death penalty is a position with is regularly promoted in conservative circles and opposed in liberal circles, yet allowing a death penalty is basically giving government a power and allowing it to set the limits, which otherwise tends to be an anathema to conservative ideals and is at least part of a liberal ideal. It's a very strange dichotomy with very predictably inconsistent roots (religion).
 
mumblethrax said:
I'm surprised to see a libertarian frame the question this way (ok, not really). I mean, it's not like we start from the assumption that the state is entitled to kill us and then justify our existence from there...right?

The argumentative burden runs the other way. Properly understood, the question is "Why should we kill him?" I've never seen a convincing argument for doing so--any good that would follow from execution can be found in alternatives that don't put blood on our hands.

The best possible reason I can think of is that it would make at least some people feel good. But if that's our standard, some pretty horrible practices can be sanctioned. I don't see any good reason to let special revenge feelings anywhere near a modern, rational justice system.
Click to expand...

Obviously, the problem is that this is the only reason used, just with more words or macho language tied to it to sound less obvious. It's a clear irrational religious throwback that people, even the non-religious, still cling to.
 
So what exactly do 'you people' propose should be done to this guy if a sanctioned 'killing' is so out of the question? Release him? That would definitely suffice for the 'no death penalty at any cost' requirement. No seriously, life in prison? Right? And thus you'd agree (by default or decree) the 'justice system' does have the right to take away all his life's liberties and/or otherwise make his life hell - it's just not entitled to take his actual life!

My question is why - or why not? When it comes to justice, why do you draw the line there? And yes I do understand the subtle (and not so) differences between 'life and death' blah blah blah... More to the point, there's absolutely nothing a human 'perpetrator' could ever do within this worldly existence where you would approve of a 'death sentence' against said perpetrator as punishment? As long as he's always left breathing you're OK with it, regardless of the nature of the crimes? Or is it that us 'mere mortals' just don't (or can't) possess the right to command another human's death as punishment for their misdeeds...EVER? Even when the major religions otherwise condone/promote humans assessing punishment on other humans, including death?! Or is it all more simply the notion that 'crime and punishment' is just so last century? ;)

I mean, I doubt many people could find any true 'redeeming value' in this particular 'dirtball', considering his crimes of murder, rape and general mayhem, so as to justify keeping him alive if the better choice in the real world is death. Oh that's right, all men are created equal under g...whoops! :)

Honest, just trying to understand here.
 
HarryHenderson said:
So what exactly do 'you people' propose should be done to this guy if a sanctioned 'killing' is so out of the question? Release him? That would definitely suffice for the 'no death penalty at any cost' requirement. No seriously, life in prison? Right? And thus you'd agree (by default or decree) the 'justice system' does have the right to take away all his life's liberties and/or otherwise make his life hell - it's just not entitled to take his actual life!

My question is why - or why not? When it comes to justice, why do you draw the line there? And yes I do understand the subtle (and not so) differences between 'life and death' blah blah blah... More to the point, there's absolutely nothing a human 'perpetrator' could ever do within this worldly existence where you would approve of a 'death sentence' against said perpetrator as punishment? As long as he's always left breathing you're OK with it, regardless of the nature of the crimes? Or is it that us 'mere mortals' just don't (or can't) possess the right to command another human's death as punishment for their misdeeds...EVER? Even when the major religions otherwise condone/promote humans assessing punishment on other humans, including death?! Or is it all more simply the notion that 'crime and punishment' is just so last century? ;)

I mean, I doubt many people could find any true 'redeeming value' in this particular 'dirtball', considering his crimes of murder, rape and general mayhem, so as to justify keeping him alive if the better choice in the real world is death. Oh that's right, all men are created equal under g...whoops! :)

Honest, just trying to understand here.
Click to expand...
Once again, you've already been linked to cases where people were on death row, or even executed when there was compelling evidence that exonerated them from their crime.

Once again, the argument is started with the premise that judges and juries are run by omnibenevolent and omniscient citizens who can perfectly convict people and perfectly judge the severity of the crime without the least possibility of error.

Honestly, I'm just trying to understand how you can claim to have read this thread and not even have anything to say about the possibility of erroneous conviction.

Simple question #1: is the US justice system perfect?
Simple question #2: If it is not, is it easier to let the innocent free, or bring the dead back to life?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom