Capital Punishment

[Wardibald]

Imho, the DP is a strong indication of that society's inability to properly deal with its worst criminals.

Philosophically speaking, no one is able to put a finger on what life actually is. What happens to us when we die? Where were we when we weren't born yet (if anywhere)? Is the answer to those two the same? No one knows. Many will point to religion for true answers, but doubting that is always an option and will always be. That is not merely my opinion, it can be argued that this is as close to a "fact" anyone can get.
Even simply biologically, what exactly makes us conscious beings, isn't quite answered (yet?).

So issuing a punishment we are totally clueless on, is not my idea of a correct, lawful punishment.

I also think, in general, criminal activity is partly the responsibility of the society it happens in. This is no fact, just my opinion, but I think everyone is born as an innately "good" being. Murderers, arsonists, and so on, are products of our society. So society is partly responsible. Independent of the philosophical implications of the DP; in this way too, I think it is not a viable option. It is an easy way out for a society, and a way to dodge responsibility.
Obviously, personal responsibility is still uncontested for me, or I could forget about the concept of personal punishment altogether. The smaller part of societies' responsibility is illustrated with various scientific studies and statistics on certain trends and their influence on crime rate.

 

[BrianLewis]

Life is so precious and undefined that we can't afford to kill a murderer? Using that reasoning, can't we say we have an obligation to society to prevent a murderer from killing another precious and undefined life form? They can't kill again once they are dead. What about the precious and undefined individual(s) that have already died because of this criminal your bleeding your heart over? Someone that doesn't respect another person's right to live and abused that to the point of causing death purposefully should be pampered and pitied because some people can only see what is directly in front of them?

In a world where you only see individuals for their own actions, how can you say that a person that has a blatant disregard for human life and has destroyed several others' lives in the process deserves the same respect as an average citizen. The truth is, the world is a better place without people like that.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

I tend to agree with what Brian Lewis just said. And I'd be for the death penalty in appropriate cases, if we could figure out how to administer it with a very low error rate.

It's certainly not true that our society treats human life as sacred and deserving of absolute protection. We make decisions all the time to trade lives for money or convenience. People still die for lack of food, shelter, or medical treatment. Highway designs are always trade-offs between lives lost and cost; studies will show that if we construct a highway curve with a shallow radius, fewer lives will be lost but it will cost much more.

We could eliminate most all highway deaths if speed limits were only ten mph. This would be most inconvenient for modern society, so we accept the risk of accidental death by riding in cars at higher speeds.

Saving the life of a dangerous murderer has zero value to me. Protecting an innocent person from an irrevocable loss of life does.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Took me a bit to realize you are against the DP Waribald.

You said "properly deal with its worst criminals". For some, they think the proper way is death. Obviously you don't mean that.

 

[Tamayo]

Using that reasoning, can't we say we have an obligation to society to prevent a murderer from killing another precious and undefined life form? They can't kill again once they are dead.

My only problems with this are that we don't necessarily have to kill to prevent more death, and the obvious philosophical elephant in the room.

 

[BrianLewis]

My only problems with this are that we don't necessarily have to kill to prevent more death, and the obvious philosophical elephant in the room.

Yet killing them is the only way to be sure of that isn't it? Even if the reform rate was 100%, I wouldn't want people going around contemplating the consequences of killing someone and thinking it might be worth it. I seriously doubt anyone is crazy enough to think that it's worth it to kill someone knowing it would cost them their own life in an equal and proper fashion.

 

[Tamayo]

Yet killing them is the only way to be sure of that isn't it? Even if the reform rate was 100%, I wouldn't want people going around contemplating the consequences of killing someone and thinking it might be worth it. I seriously doubt anyone is crazy enough to think that it's worth it to kill someone knowing it would cost them their own life in an equal and proper fashion.

Not necessarily. Solitary confinement is a good option. Murderers and rapists can live the rest of their lives without seeing the light of day again for all I care, really. Although, that'd be pretty costly, I think.


Who all is supportive of making the worst-of-the-worst criminals work to pay for their food/clothes/etc. here? I think that our system is in reform no matter which side you stand on the death penalty. It's a bit of a shame that one has to consider the cost to society for keeping these criminals sustained indefinitely in modern prisons where they've got it easy.

 

[SevenStarsHK2N]

Well seeing as another 3 citizens have just been killed by the signature of Abe - this thread is probably worth a bump.

The crime one of them in particular commited was pretty much as awful as a crime against a singular individual and their family can be

he murder raped a 7yr old and then sent a picture to the girls mum.

I'm just not entirely sure how 2 wrongs make a right.

specifically regarding this case - the state as i see it has a duty to detect, detain and treat people as mentally deranged as this.

The state clearly failed in it's duties and as a result the girl died.

The state fails - then the state murders it's failure.

 

[BrianLewis]

What was his initial crime that the state failed to correct?

By the way, executing and dispatching are different from murdering. It might be wise to do a side study of the differences.

 

[nahadef]

What was his initial crime that the state failed to correct?
By the way, executing and dispatching are different from murdering. It might be wise to do a side study of the differences.

Yes, Jesus did promote, "Thou shalt not kill," and not, "Thou shalt not execute." If Jesus were alive today, he'd be in America, pulling that switch...

Or maybe he would be promoting social programs, and looking to treat illnesses rather than just cut out symptoms... I don't know, I'm just an atheist who finds Christian murderers hypocrites.

 

[Tamayo]

I'm just not entirely sure how 2 wrongs make a right.

...huh?

specifically regarding this case - the state as i see it has a duty to detect, detain and treat people as mentally deranged as this.
The state clearly failed in it's duties and as a result the girl died.
The state fails - then the state murders it's failure.

This is the same sort of thing as gun control in general. It's our culture that needs to be fixed.

Yes, Jesus did promote, "Thou shalt not kill," and not, "Thou shalt not execute." If Jesus were alive today, he'd be in America, pulling that switch...

Or maybe he would be promoting social programs, and looking to treat illnesses rather than just cut out symptoms...

What on Earth are you talking about?

I don't know, I'm just an atheist who finds Christian murderers hypocrites.

I really don't see what you mean with anything you posted. How does Christianity have to do with this?