US about to descend to barbarism yet again

[Thunder]

The USA officially murdered more of its own citizens in 2009 than any other country on earth, with the exception of China, Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

classic EJ.

 

[TraneWreck]

I begin with the premise that one ought not willfully take the life of a defenseless human being. The death penalty is such a practice. It naturally follows that we ought not engage in executing people.

Seems pretty simple. Can someone point out any errors I've made?

How did you get to the "ought?"

 

[Number Six]

I begin with the premise that one ought not willfully take the life of a defenseless human being. The death penalty is such a practice. It naturally follows that we ought not engage in executing people.

Seems pretty simple. Can someone point out any errors I've made?

And what if there are two electric chair switches and one is a fake and you have two people both flip a switch, one real and one fake and neither knows which is which. Is anyone willfully taking the life of a human being at that point?

 

[mumblethrax]

I think here's a good rule of thumb to whether the death penalty is limited enough:
Would lethal force be justified to stop the crime that the convict is being executed for?
If so, then it's probably not human rights abuse.

Ipse dixit. There's no good reason to adopt or respect such a rule, given that lethal force is justified only where there is imminent danger.

 

[McHrozni]

I begin with the premise that one ought not willfully take the life of a defenseless human being. The death penalty is such a practice. It naturally follows that we ought not engage in executing people.

Seems pretty simple. Can someone point out any errors I've made?

In the civilized world the said human being was entitled to a defender, presumption of innocence and several appeals. While your premise could be correct (it's down to opinion) and we indeed shouldn't willfully take the life of a defenseless human being, no matter what, the said human being was far from defenseless to begin with.

McHrozni

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Deleted.

 

[AvalonXQ]

There's no good reason to adopt or respect such a rule, given that lethal force is justified only where there is imminent danger.

Lethal force isn't justified where there's imminent danger of getting your nose broken.
Making an benchmark calculation involving the severity of the conduct that compares the State's willingness to kill someone after the fact to a civilian's right to kill someone during the crime seems to be one reasonable rule of thumb.
And it certainly distinguishes between Alabama's executions and Iran's.

 

[JWideman]

It is only wrong to kill innocent people. This person Teresa Lewis is not even remotely innocent. There's not even a shadow of doubt about her guilt. It's unquestionable that she masterminded and orchestrated the deaths of two innocent people - her family - in cold blood. For money.
To compare that to countries that murder innocent people over a backwards sense of morality or to crush dissent is to be so dishonest it's pathological.

Further, treating its states as the sovereign entities they are in that they have the choice to decide for themselves issues such as whether or not to keep the death penalty is what makes the USA the greatest country in the world.
Have a nice day.

 

[Sledge]

Lethal force isn't justified where there's imminent danger of getting your nose broken.
Making an benchmark calculation involving the severity of the conduct that compares the State's willingness to kill someone after the fact to a civilian's right to kill someone during the crime seems to be one reasonable rule of thumb.
And it certainly distinguishes between Alabama's executions and Iran's.

So it's ok for the state to kill people as long as they meet your criteria for doing so? Like the old joke goes, we've established what you are. Now we're just haggling over price.

 

[bynmdsue]

It is only wrong to kill innocent people. This person Teresa Lewis is not even remotely innocent. There's not even a shadow of doubt about her guilt. It's unquestionable that she masterminded and orchestrated the deaths of two innocent people - her family - in cold blood. For money.
To compare that to countries that murder innocent people over a backwards sense of morality or to crush dissent is to be so dishonest it's pathological.

Further, treating its states as the sovereign entities they are in that they have the choice to decide for themselves issues such as whether or not to keep the death penalty is what makes the USA the greatest country in the world.
Have a nice day.

...and BOOM goes the dynamite!

 

[AvalonXQ]

So it's ok for the state to kill people as long as they meet your criteria for doing so?

As long as they meet an appropriate criterion for doing so, yes -- of which I've proposed one that easily distinguishes between executions that are clearly barbaric and those that have at least a veneer of justifiability.
Or in other words, just as it's possible for some private killings to be justified and others not, it's possible for some executions to be justified and others not.

 

[John Jones]

I get your point but, on the other hand, no one can complain when the US is put into the same catagory as Iran, China, Saudi Arabia. Not really something to be proud of.

Plus, when you think about what you're saying it is just as silly. "We're number 195 out of 200 (give or take) countries! Yay, us!"

Watch what you say.

I neither said nor implied any such thing. Furthermore, I believe nothing of the kind.

 

[mumblethrax]

Lethal force isn't justified where there's imminent danger of getting your nose broken.

I didn't say it is always justified where there is imminent danger, I said it is only justified where there is imminent danger.

There's no imminent danger from a death row inmate.

Making an benchmark calculation involving the severity of the conduct that compares the State's willingness to kill someone after the fact to a civilian's right to kill someone during the crime seems to be one reasonable rule of thumb.
And it certainly distinguishes between Alabama's executions and Iran's.

It's an idiotic standard. If the police arrive at the scene of a shooting spree and the suspect immediately surrenders, there is no justifiable use of force. If someone threatens another with a deadly weapon, there is. This would imply that mass murder is not a capital offense, and assault with a deadly weapon is.

And if assault with deadly weapon is a capital offense, I think you've inadequately distinguished yourself from Iran.

 

[Vortigern99]

I'm American, and I object to the death penalty on the grounds that it constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" against which our Constitution provides guarantees.

I also find the OP to be unnecessarily hysterical and polemic.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I If the police arrive at the scene of a shooting spree and the suspect immediately surrenders, there is no justifiable use of force.

Apparently you don't actually understand the standard I'm proposing. I agree that your strawman standard is idiotic.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

I also find the OP to be unnecessarily hysterical and polemic.

Typing "posted by EJ" instead of the bold section next time will save keystrokes and get the same point across.

 

[mumblethrax]

Apparently you don't actually understand the standard I'm proposing. I agree that your strawman standard is idiotic.

It's not a straw man. You actually said this:

I think here's a good rule of thumb to whether the death penalty is limited enough:
Would lethal force be justified to stop the crime that the convict is being executed for?
If so, then it's probably not human rights abuse.

Which directly implies that if we start executing people for conduct such as threatening people such that someone has reason to believe that they are in imminent danger, there's probably no human rights abuse.

Which is idiotic, and has no basis beyond bare assertion in any case.

 

[lionking]

I'm American, and I object to the death penalty on the grounds that it constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" against which our Constitution provides guarantees.

I also find the OP to be unnecessarily hysterical and polemic.

Yes, I agree with this. EJ's threads are always hyperbolic, and the US is not barbaric, but this "eye for an eye" thing is too OT biblical for me.

 

[John Jones]

It is only wrong to kill innocent people.. . .

"Innocent? Innocent of what?" -Little Bill Daggett.

 

[TraneWreck]

I'm American, and I object to the death penalty on the grounds that it constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" against which our Constitution provides guarantees.

I also find the OP to be unnecessarily hysterical and polemic.

Yes, I agree with this. EJ's threads are always hyperbolic, and the US is not barbaric, but this "eye for an eye" thing is too OT biblical for me.

I object to the death penalty because of its poor implementation.

Do you know what the single largest determining factor, statistically, for which murder cases will result in the death penalty? The race of the victim. White victim=death, black and other ethnicities=meh, who cares?

Conceptually, however, I don't have that much of a problem with it. I don't view it as retribution, just as a house cleaning. A murderer is sort of like a horse that breaks its leg-it just needs to be put down. They're not destroyed out of cruelty, just out of a recognition that a mass of biology has gone wrong and needs to be terminated.

I oppose the death penalty as it exists now, but I think greatly increasing the amount of proof necessary to administer the punishment (DNA evidence, significant circumstantial evidence, valid confessions...etc) could generate a situation where I could support such killings.

Anyone sad that Bundy and Gacy are gone?